Solvang City Council
February 13, 2023

Approach to Analysis
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Solvang to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
• The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer • Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
• U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• CalEnviroScreen 4.0
• California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
• All Transit
• Walkscore
• County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020 (AI) • The Comprehensive House Affordability Strategy (CHAS) • US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
HCD AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation, and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes. 647
H-A-4 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Urban Displacement Project
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic White population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California. Hayward continues to explore programs and policies to address community pollution, environmental health access to open space and government decision making through creation of an Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan.

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies and departments to further the state’s fair housing goals. The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to highopportunity areas for families with children.2 Opportunity Maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table 1. The Opportunity Maps include filters to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty Status: census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level
• Racial Segregation: census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all non-White populations in comparison to the county
648
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-5 Table 1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps 2020.

AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

Walk Score
Walk Score provides walkability services and apartment search tools to addresses across the United States, with the mission “to promote walkable neighborhoods.” Walk Score measures walkability by assigning a numerical walkability score based on distance to amenities within a 30-minute walk and evaluates pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density. 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. The 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

Community Engagement and Outreach
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during the community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices. Please see Chapter 1 for more details on the City’s outreach efforts and the Local Data and Knowledge section at the end of this analysis for a summary of fair housing issues raised from the community.
649
H-A-6 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Analysis of Impediments Findings
Regional Trends
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. This analysis, the County of Santa Barbara Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), is an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures that will be pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments. The AI covers the Santa Barbara County Consortium. Consortium jurisdictions include the City of Buellton, City of Carpinteria, City of Goleta, City of Lompoc, City of Santa Maria, City of Solvang, and unincorporated County of Santa Barbara. The AI provides a demographic profile of Santa Barbara County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. Regionally, the AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing:
• The poverty rate in the Consortium has consistently been higher than the statewide rate, and has increased slightly more than the state as a whole;
• Renters are, by far, the most cost burdened group in the Consortium. The cities of Santa Maria and Lompoc have the highest percentages of cost-burdened renters. Rents have increased by 18.3 percent since 2010; • Addressing the needs of the homeless, disabled, veterans, seniors, and youth is met with delivery services that need greater coordination;
• The housing stock in the Consortium is slightly older than the rest of the state • Lending concerns surrounding Asian applicants and Hispanic applicants. Asian applicants are more likely to be denied, and Hispanic applicants are most likely to be denied financing based on credit history.

Local Trends
A summary of contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in Solvang are discussed in detail below.

The AI identified the following trends specific to Solvang that may contribute to impediments to fair housing:
• High old-age dependency ratio (high ratio of residents aged 65 and older compared to residents aged 16 through 64);
• Solvang had one of the highest percentages of residents living with a disability (12 percent) in the County; • Large increase in median household income between 2010 and 2017 (increase of 20 percent) which could indicate risk of displacement;
• Significant increase in the percent of residents below the poverty line, from 6 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2017;
• High rates of cost burden, especially among renters (49 percent of renters paid 30 percent or more of their income on rent);
• Thirty (30) percent increase in median rent costs between 2010 and 2017; 650
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-7 Fair Housing Resources and Analysis
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

Regional Trends
Table 2 below includes a list of key regional stakeholders in Santa Barbara County who conduct fair housing assistance outreach. These organizations collaborate with local governments to address housing and community needs and provide the following services:
• Fair housing testing and complaints
• Fair housing counseling and education
• Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
• Homeless prevention program
• Rental assistance program
• Rent/deposit grant program
• Home seeking services
• Shared housing counseling placement
• Homebuyers’ education learning program
651
H-A-8 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 2 Organizations Active in Santa Barbara County
Organization Activities and Capacity
Santa Barbara County: Housing and Community Development Division
Preparation of Consolidated Plan
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara Rental assistance and affordable housing production and preservation
Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation Affordable housing services including preservation and production
People’s Self-Help Housing Corporation Affordable housing services and production Community Partners in Caring Senior support services for independent living Independent Living Resource Center, Inc. Housing for persons with disabilities Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County Housing services for children, victims of domestic violence, and homeless
People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) Housing support services Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara Housing support services Women’s Economic Ventures Economic empowerment for Women Just Communities Inclusionary and racial justice education and leadership United Way, Home for Good Homelessness services and advocacy Source: Santa Barbara Consolidated Plan, 2024
Fair Housing Enforcement
HUD maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From 2015 to 2019, 56 fair housing complaints in Santa Barbara County were filed with HUD. Nearly 57 percent of complaints filed were from residents of the City of Santa Barbara. Lompoc and Goleta filed a fair number of complaints after the City of Santa Barbara. Overall, disability-related discrimination was the most commonly reported—comprising 46 percent of all cases.

Complaints concerning familial status (26 percent), retaliation (10 percent), race (7 percent), national origin (6 percent), sex (6 percent) were also regularly reported. Half of all complaints filed (55 percent or 31 cases) were deemed to have no cause and another 23 percent (13 cases) were conciliated or settled.

Fair housing testing was conducted in the County with a total of 118 sites tested for familial status, race, and disability (reasonable accommodation). Disparate treatment was found at 16 sites for all variables: five cases for familial status, six cases for race, and five cases for disability.
652
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-9 Local Trends
The City of Solvang has a long history of communicating and collaborating with other governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address housing, health, and other related issues. The City participates in the HOME Consortium. According to HOME Consortium, there were no official housing complaints between from 2015 to 2019.

However, this does not mean residents were experiencing no fair housing or discrimination issues.

The HOME Consortium partners with the City and other participating jurisdictions to address fair housing issues throughout the region. The HOME Consortium contracts with the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County to provide legal advice and information on landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities, training to property managers and tenants, and monitor and report on fair housing issues. The City’s website also provides information on fair housing rights and how to issue a complaint to HUD.
653
H-A-10 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Segregation and Integration Patterns and
Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.

To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015 – 2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies.

Race and Ethnicity
Regional Trends
Regionally, the more urbanized areas located in the western part of Santa Barbara County contain populations with at least 40 percent non-White residents, as demonstrated in the geographic depiction of 2015-2019 ACS data shown in Figure 1. Comparatively, the urbanized areas located in the southern part of the county contain a higher percentage of White residents. Most of the county is predominantly White, except for census tracts within and to the west of the cities of Guadalupe and Santa Maria and census tracts within the cities of Lompoc, Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria, which are predominantly Hispanic, as shown in Figure 2.

HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index as a measure of segregation. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index represents the extent of which any two racial/ethnic groups differ across a defined geographical area. The index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between the two racial/ethnic groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. An index value below 40 is generally considered low segregation, a value between 40 and 54 is considered a moderate level of segregation, and a value above 55 is a high level of segregation. Racial/ethnic segregation in Santa Barbara County increased between 2010 and 2019. Table 3 shows racial/ethnic segregation in Santa Barbara County using the dissimilarity index using data from HUD’s AFFH mapping tool. Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the most segregated in the county compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Segregation between Black and White residents is moderate, since the racial dissimilarity index score is between 40 and 54 for 2019. Segregation between Non-White and White residents, between Hispanic and White residents, and between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is considered low, since their racial dissimilarity index scores are below 40 for 2019. Increasing rates of segregation could be attributed to greater concentrations of Black and Asian residents in urban areas due to the presence of services and lower housing costs in urban centers. In addition, wealthier, White residents could afford to move away from urban centers to the outlying areas of cities and rural parts of the county. 654
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-11 Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (Santa Barbara County) Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity Index
1990 2000 2010 2019
Non-White/White 24.05 24.48 22.10 28.93
Black/White 49.03 38.24 33.75 41.95
Hispanic/White 24.03 28.85 24.25 31.11
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White

31.91 29.03 29.17 35.82
Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Mapping Tool – Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, 2022 It is also important to see if race and ethnic groups are also related to concentrated poverty and poor housing stock to identify potential inequities that may be a result of discriminatory housing policies or other barriers to affordable housing. In the Consortium, Native Americans/Alaskan Natives and Black and African Americans have the highest poverty rates, followed by Black or African American, then Hispanic population as seen in Table 4. Typically, in areas with predominantly White groups, the poverty trends are less. In comparison to the State, the region makes up about 74 percent White population versus 61 percent of the state, as seen in Table 5 below. Hispanics make up the next largest racial group, with a total of 46 percent Hispanic population in the Consortium, compared to just 39 percent total in the state of California.
655
H-A-12 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 4 Poverty and Racial/Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity Santa Barbara County California (state)
# in Poverty % in Poverty # in Poverty % in Poverty
Consortium 51,861 15.9% 5,773,408 15.1%
White 36,393 14.8% 3,183,011 13.7%
Black or African American 1,303 21.1% 502,610 23.2%
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 649 22.3% 62,078 21.9%
Asian 3,096 18.8% 607,792 11.2%
N. Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 7 1.4% 21,470 14.5%
Some other race 8,331 21.0% 1,141,471 21.8%
Two or more races 2,082 14.4% 254,976 14.3%
Hispanic 29,674 19.5% 3,052,999 20.6%
Data note: “# in poverty” is the estimate of people in poverty in race/ethnicity group and “% in poverty” is the percent of the persons in poverty in the race/ethnicity group.

Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Source: 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 656
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-13 Figure 1 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
657
H-A-14 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 2 Santa Barbara Predominant Race (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
658
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-15 Table 5 Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race Consortium California (state)
Estimate % of Total Estimate % of Total
White 330,827 74.1% 23,607,242 60.6%
Black or African American 8,307 2.0% 2,263,222 5.8%
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 3,869 .9% 292,018 0.7%
Asian 23,927 5.8% 5,503,672 14.1%
N. Hawaiian/Other PI 732 0.2% 152,027 0.4%
Some other race 55,909 12.7% 5,329,952 13.7%
Two or more races 19,425 4.6% 1,834,714 4.7%
Hispanic 198,556 46.0% 15,105,860 38.8%
Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Local Trends
The City of Solvang is predominantly and sizably White, as seen in Figure 3, with the southern area in the city predominantly White. When compared to the Consortium, the City of Solvang is approximately 89 percent White compared to 74 percent of the Consortium, based on the 2013-2017 ACS estimates shown in Table 6. Figure 4 shows the level of diversity in the population in Solvang by Census block group data, showing the areas with the most diversity west of Alisal Road and north and south of Mission Drive in the center of the city. The northern area has the least diversity in the city.

As shown in Figure 3, the southern part of the city had a predominant majority of White residents. This part of the city consists of the Alisal Golf Course and Alisal Ranch, as well as low density single-family housing, while other parts of the city have a greater diversity of land uses and a mix of housing types and density. Additionally, the southern part of the city is part of a large census tract that primarily includes unincorporated parts of the county. The unincorporated areas and the southern part of Solvang are accounted for in the analysis of racial/ethnic diversity. Rural areas of the county tend to have less racial/ethnic diversity.
659
H-A-16 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 3 Predominant Population – White (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
660
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-17 Figure 4 Racial Demographics (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
661
H-A-18 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 6 Racial and Ethnic Composition in Consortium by Percentage of Population Member
Cities White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian/Alaska
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Some
Other
Race
Two
or
More
Races
Hispanic
Ethnicity
Buellton 85.8 2.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 6.1 4.2 29.4
Carpinteria 73.3 0.4 0.9 3.8 0.0 18.6 3.0 45.1
Goleta 69.1 1.9 0.6 8.7 0.1 14.5 5.1 36.4
Lompoc 64.4 5.1 1.9 3.3 0.3 17.6 7.4 56.7
Santa
Maria

73.4 1.3 0.4 5.2 0.1 16.7 2.8 74.6
Solvang 88.8 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 6.5 2.7 27.1
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019 Estimates, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity includes access to housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s special needs and disability-related services as required under federal civil rights law. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.1
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureaudesignated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.2 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit. In addition to having to overcome barriers such as housing discrimination and accessible housing units, people with disabilities are typically on a fixed income and as a result, will often face financial hardships at higher rates when compared to the average person.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 10 percent of Santa Barbara residents had one or more disabilities. An estimated 9.4 percent of the total population of the Consortium (32,314 residents) had a disability of some sort, leaving a large portion of the population out of reach for 1 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 2 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
662
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-19 accessible and affordable housing. Figure 5 shows the spatial distribution of residents living with one or more disabilities across the county. Communities in the central region of the county such as Lompoc, Orcutt, and eastern Santa Maria and some coastal areas in Goleta and Santa Barbara were estimated to have a larger share of residents with disabilities compared to western coastal areas and central southern areas of Santa Ynez. Among those with disabilities, it is also typical across the County and State for those with disabilities to have other constraints. Most tend to be elderly, where roughly half of those with disabilities in the Consortium are 75 years and over, and 21 percent is 65 to 74 years (Table 7). In addition to that, minority groups also experience higher rates of disability across the board, as seen in Table 8.
663
H-A-20 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 5 Persons with Disabilities (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer 2022
664
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-21 Table 7 Disability and Age (Santa Barbara County and Solvang) Santa Barbara County Solvang
With a Disability % of Age Group With a Disability % of Age Group Persons with a
disability 43,333 9.9% 602 10.6%
Under 5 Years 120 0.4% 7 3.5%
5 to 17 Years 2,770 3.9% 0 0.0%
18 to 34 Years 5,926 4.7% 25 2.4%
35 to 64 Years 14,188 9.6% 123 5.6%
65 to 74 Years 7,014 20.2% 141 22.7%
75 Years and Over 13,315 46.4% 306 50.1%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S1810, 2015-2019 Estimates Table 8 Disabilities among Racial and Ethnic Groups by Percentage of Population Member
Cities White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian/Alaska
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Some
Other
Race
Two
or
More
Races
Hispanic
Ethnicity
Buellton 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 12.3 6.5 49.0
Carpinteria 11.6 12.3 16.0 3.8 0.0 18.6 3.0 45.1
Goleta 10.7 5.9 0.0 2.6 53.3 2.6 4.6 5.4
Lompoc 12.7 17.6 19.4 7.2 27.4 7.0 11.0 7.4
Santa
Maria

9.5 15.9 21.1 9.9 15.4 5.1 9.6 5.7
Solvang 12.8 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 11.3 5.4
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2019, 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Local Trends
According to the AI, Solvang is among the top 3 jurisdictions for disability rates throughout the Consortium. ACS 2015-2019 estimates show a total of 602 persons with disabilities reside within the City of Solvang, which is approximately 10.6 percent of the population. A high percentage of those with disabilities are elderly. Approximately 36.3 percent of Solvang residents over the age of 65 have one or more disabilities. Feedback from the City’s Fair Housing Survey identified a need for ADA compliant 665
H-A-22 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 housing to accommodate older residents with disabilities. Figure 6 depicts the percentage and even distribution of the population with a disability residing in the city. Throughout the city, there are no areas have a concentration of residents living with a disability. 666
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-23 Figure 6 Population with a Disability (City of Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
667
H-A-24 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Familial Status
According to the Fair Housing Act, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the marital status of the head of households. Protections to this class is an important requirement in addressing income disparities and economic outcomes for families, especially for households with children, as research shows higher housing discrimination when compared to households without children. HUD provides examples of familial discrimination as (a) refusing to rent to families with children; (b) evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody; (c) requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas; (d) imposing overly restrictive rules about children’s use of the common areas (e.g., pools, hallways, open spaces); and I advertising that prohibits children.3 Single-parent households are protected by Government Code Section 65583(a)(7). Because of their relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, single-parent households can have limited options for affordable, decent, and safe housing. As a result, single parents among the groups most at risk of experiencing poverty.

In addition to barriers to fair housing for single-parent households, large families (defined as families with 5 or more persons) can also experience housing discrimination as property owners impose occupancy limitations that can preclude large families with children. HUD data shows that familial status discrimination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race.4
Regional Trends
According to the AI, familial status was second most common fair housing complaint in the County of Santa Barbara. According to 2015-2019 estimates, Santa Barbara County had a total of 145,856 households. Households with children present comprised approximately 29 percent (41,957) of the total households in the county. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table

9. High percentages of children living in a female headed household or single parent households reside in areas with higher concentrations of predominantly non-White communities. This includes cities in the northwest and southeast regions, including Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Figure 8 shows that areas of the county with a higher percentage of children living in female single-parent households were located in more urban areas, in and surrounding the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Solvang, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Female single-parent households are often living on a single income. Therefore, urban areas which typically have lower housing costs and greater access to services like childcare generally have a higher percentage of female single-parent households.

As shown in Figure 9, areas with the highest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located along the coast, in western and southern parts of the county. Areas with the lowest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located in more urban areas, particularly in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista, and Santa Barbara. Isla Vista is located in proximity to the University of 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children#_ Who_Is_Protected?
4U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2017.” 668
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-25 California, Santa Barbara which would account for the low percentage of adults living with a spouse.

Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone was highest in the cities of Lompoc and Santa Barbara. This could be due to the lower cost of housing and greater access to jobs in urban areas. 669
H-A-26 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 7 shows that concentrated areas in the cities of Lompoc and Goleta include almost 40-80 percent of children living a single or female household.

Table 9 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Santa Barbara County) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent OwnerOccupied Renter-OccupiedPercent RenterOccupied Married-couple family, with
Children Present
14,947 19.8% 14,680 21.2%
Single-Parent, Male
householder, no
spouse/partner present
1,075 1.4% 2,884 4.2%
Single-Parent, Female
householder, no
spouse/partner present
1,659 2.2% 7,150 10.3%
Total Households with
Children Present
17,681 23.4% 24,714 35.7%
Total Households 75,640 69,322
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Figure 8 shows that areas of the county with a higher percentage of children living in female singleparent households were located in more urban areas, in and surrounding the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Solvang, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. Female single-parent households are often living on a single income. Therefore, urban areas which typically have lower housing costs and greater access to services like childcare generally have a higher percentage of female single-parent households.

As shown in Figure 9, areas with the highest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located along the coast, in western and southern parts of the county. Areas with the lowest percentage of adults living with a spouse were located in more urban areas, particularly in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista, and Santa Barbara. Isla Vista is located in proximity to the University of California, Santa Barbara which would account for the low percentage of adults living with a spouse.

Figure 10 shows the percentage of adults living alone was highest in the cities of Lompoc and Santa Barbara. This could be due to the lower cost of housing and greater access to jobs in urban areas. 670
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-27 Figure 7 Children in Married – Couple Households (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
671
H-A-28 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 8 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
672
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-29 Figure 9 Population of Adults Living with Spouse/Partner (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
673
H-A-30 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 10 Population of Adults Living Alone (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
674
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-31 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Solvang had a total of 2,364 households. Households with children present comprised 30 percent (709) of the total households in the county. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table 10. In Solvang, around 9.2 percent of children live in a single-parent, female household. Figure 11 shows the distribution of single-parent, female headed households, the highest concentration of which are located in the central areas of the city. Families, particularly female-headed families, are disproportionately affected by poverty. Children living in married-couple households are evenly distributed throughout the city, with 40 to 60 percent of children living in married-couple households, as seen in Figure 12. Additional analysis regarding household characteristics for Solvang is included in the Housing Needs Assessment.

Table 10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Solvang) Household Type
OwnerOccupiedPercent OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedPercent RenterOccupied Married-couple family, with
Children Present
289 20.0% 115 12.5%
Single-Parent, Male householder,
no spouse/partner present
6 0.4% 81 8.8%
Single-Parent, Female
householder, no spouse/partner
present
59 4.1% 159 17.3%
Total Households with Children
Present
354 24.5% 355 38.6%
Total Households 1,445 919
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates. 675
H-A-32 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 11 Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
676
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-33 Figure 12 Children in Married – Couple Households (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
677
H-A-34 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Household Income
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI)). Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates shown in Table 11, Santa Barbara County had a median household income of $74,624. Figure 13 provides median household income data by block group for Santa Barbara County. LMI areas are concentrated throughout the northwestern, central inland and coastal southern areas of the county as seen in Figure 13. In the northwestern county area, LMI areas are highly concentrated in parts of Santa Maria and Lompoc. In the central inland area, concentrations can be seen in Solvang and Buellton. In the southern coastal portion of the county, clusters of LMI areas are seen in the City of Goleta, the City of Santa Barbara, and in some parts of the City of Carpinteria. Households that earn less annually, are typically concentrated within city limits in urban areas, versus rural fringe areas.

Higher income households make up much of the central coastal and inland areas with much of the population earning greater than $125,000 per household annually, exceeding the HCD 2020 State median income (Figure 14). Surrounding areas earn over $87,100 per household annually, which meets the HCD 2020 State median income. Data shown in Figure 14 is represented by block group, and groups meeting or exceeding the state median income are mostly present throughout the City of Santa Barbara, northern Carpinteria, and outer edges of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Goleta. Higher earners are typically located in rural or fringe areas, and rarely in the city centers. 678
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-35 Figure 13 Lower- and Moderate- Income Areas ( Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
679
H-A-36 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 14 Household Income (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
680
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-37 Table 11 Median Household Income in Consortium Region
Municipalities 2010 2017 Percent Change 2010-
2017
Unincorporated Santa
Barbara County
$60,078 $68,023 13.2%
Buellton $63,988 $77,462 21.0%
Carpinteria $63,834 $69,834 9.4%
Goleta $67,895 $87,068 28.0%
Lompoc $46,932 $49,074 4.6%
Santa Maria $50,208 $55,485 10.5%
Solvang $61,289 $73,373 19.7%
California $60,883 $67,169 10.3%
Source: 2020 County of Santa Barbara HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Solvang had a median household income of $83,431 in 2019.

Solvang’s median household income is higher than the county’s median income and is increasing by almost double the rate of surrounding cities with the exception of Buellton and Goleta (Table 11). As shown in Table 12, between 2014 and 2018, approximately 68 percent of Solvang households were considered moderate or above-moderate income, while 32 percent of households were considered lower income.

Table 12 Households by Income Category (2014-2018)
Income Category (% of County AMI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 260 11%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 145 6%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 350 15%
Moderate (81 to 100% AMI) 195 8%
Above-Moderate (over 100% AMI) 1,415 60%
Total 2,365 100%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.

As depicted in Figure 15, lower- and moderate-income households are located mostly in the southern area of the city, south of the Santa Ynez River. In this area, between 50 and 75 percent of the population 681
H-A-38 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 was comprised of LMI residents. However, this area is predominantly composed of the Alisal Ranch and golf course, a resort and vacation destination, and surrounded by large-lot single-family homes.

Therefore, the limited residents in this southern area of the city are likely not LMI households. Further north, the percentage of LMI populations decreases, with the northern area of the city having the least concentrated LMI. Median household income is also greater in the northern area of the city, where median income exceeds $125,000 annually, compared to central and southern areas of the city, as seen in Figure 16.

By HUD’s definition, households paying more than 30 percent of their monthly household income is cost burdened. According to the AI, renters are by far the most cost burdened group in the consortium.

As seen in Table 13, Error! Reference source not found., renters in Solvang earn substantially less in median household income when compared to homeowners. Stakeholders and focus group respondents from community outreach note that rents continue to rise and exceed this figure.

Table 13 Housing Tenure and Median Household Income
Occupied Housing
Units Percent Occupied
Median Household
Income
Owner-occupied 1,482 62.3% 118,483
Renter-occupied 898 37.7% 63,889
Total 2,380 100.0% 83,431
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2019, 2019 Inflation-adjusted dollars 682
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-39 Figure 15 Low to Moderate Income Population (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
683
H-A-40 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 16 Median Household Income
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
684
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-41 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (also known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. For an area to be identified as having a racial and ethnic concentration, the threshold is that a R/ECAP have a non-White population of 50 percent or more, within metropolitan or micropolitan areas. In locations outside these areas, where the non-White populations are likely to be much smaller than 50 percent, the threshold is set at 20 percent. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or those where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and also meets the poverty test would be considered a R/ECAP.

Historical discriminatory policies have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, and despite decades long fair housing policy, many neighborhoods have not yet transformed from racially and ethnically concentrated areas to areas of opportunity. Areas with higher concentrations of poverty can be indicative of discriminatory housing policies and other barriers to affordable housing.

Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
In Santa Barbara County, there are no R/ECAPs. However, there are areas with concentrated poverty in the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Isla Vista, Goleta, and Santa Barbara, as depicted in Figure 17. In addition, there is one census tract in the City of Lompoc that is identified by TCAC as an area of high segregation and poverty, shown in Figure 18. According to the AI, three cities (Buellton, Carpinteria, and Goleta) experienced a decrease in poverty between 2010 and 2017. The overall county and cities of Lompoc, Santa Maria, and Solvang had an increase in poverty between 2010 and 2017. Solvang had the highest increase in poverty, with a 145 percent increase from 2010 to 2017. 685
H-A-42 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 17 Concentrated Areas of Poverty (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
686
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-43 Figure 18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
687
H-A-44 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Local Trends
Solvang does not have any R/ECAPs. As shown in Figure 19, Solvang does not have any concentrated areas of poverty. Poverty rates are consistent throughout the city, with less than 10 percent of the population living below the poverty level. Figure 20 shows neighborhood segregation in Lompoc using data from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP). According to the UDP, the racial/ethnic composition varies throughout the City. The predominant racial/ethnic composition in the northern part of the city is a mix of Hispanic/White. The predominant racial/ethnic composition in the southern part of the city is a 3-part mix of Hispanic/White/Other. When compared to other jurisdictions in the County, Solvang has experienced the largest poverty percent change from 6 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2017, totaling a 145 percent change from 2010 to 2017. Increasing poverty rates in the city could be attributed to the growing senior population. Seniors are often living on a fixed income, such as Social Security, which often is much lower than the area median income. 688
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-45 Figure 19 Poverty Status (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
689
H-A-46 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 20 Neighborhood Segregation (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
690
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-47 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. HCD defines an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.5
Regional Trends
According to the AI, median household income in 2017 in Santa Barbara County ($68,023) is comparable to that of California ($67,169). However, median household income varies widely among the cities within the County. For example, Lompoc ($49,074) and Santa Maria ($55,485) have much lower median household incomes compared to cities such as Goleta ($87,068), Buellton ($77,462) and Solvang ($73,373) which have higher median household incomes. Cities like Carpinteria ($69,834) are more comparable to the MHI of the county and state. Figure 21 highlights the predominantly White census tracts within Santa Barbara County which are concentrated in the central and southeast areas along the coast in areas such as Santa Ynez, portions of Solvang and Buellton, Goleta, Montecito, and Carpinteria. Generally, these predominantly White areas are associated with areas of high median income as seen in Figure 16.

There are several RCAAs within Santa Barbara County located in and around the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara. These areas are predominantly White and have high median incomes. Figure 22 shows the RCAAs within Santa Barbara County. Areas with the highest concentration of White residents are generally located north of the City of Solvang as well as areas in and around the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara. This corresponds with the areas that have the highest median incomes in the county.

Areas with a lower concentration of White residents are generally located in and near the cities of Guadalupe, Santa Maria, and Lompoc.
5 HCD. April 2021. AFFH Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 691
H-A-48 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 21 Predominant White Population (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
692
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-49 Figure 22 Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
693
H-A-50 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Local Trends
Median Household Income in Solvang is comparable to higher Median Household Incomes in the County. While there are no RCAAs areas in Solvang, low density residential zoning correlates with predominant White populations and populations with higher median income. Racial/ethnic diversity is highest in the middle of Solvang, where higher density residential land uses are prevalent (Figure 4) compared to areas in the north with larger, more rural lots.

Areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of White residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes. The northern area of the city has the highest median income and the lowest percentage of non-White residents in the city, as shown in Figure 23. 694
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-51 Figure 23 Percent Total Non-White Population and Median Income (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
695
H-A-52 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses access to education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).

Transit Access and Walkability
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices. Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low income neighborhoods.6 The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice.

Persons who depend on public transit may have limited choices regarding places to live.

Regional Trends
AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The data is scored from 1-9. According to AllTransit, cities with the lowest performance scores in Santa Barbara County were Buellton (1.2), Solvang (1.2), Lompoc (3.2), and Santa Maria (4.3). Overall, low scores were generated from a low number of transit routes within a half mile paired with a low number of jobs accessible. Carpinteria (6.3), the City of Santa Barbara (6.4), and Goleta (5.4), scored a moderate combination of trips per week enabling a moderate number of people to take transit to work.

Figure 24 shows the region’s transit system which provides services to the majority of the populated areas. The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District provides services for the entirety of urbanized areas in the south coast. In the north coast, four different service providers connect the subregion. The northern and southern regions are connected by the Clean Air Express commuter services. This connection is critical as there is a greater diversity and number of jobs in the south coast. An expensive housing market in the south coast leaves many seeking housing on the north coast, where housing is more affordable.
6 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles”. UCLA Department of Policy Studies, (1998).
696
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-53 However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Low-income workers, especially female heads of household with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home, regardless of access to public transit. Women in general are disproportionately responsible for household-supporting activities such as trips to grocery stores or accompanying young children to and from schools.

Local Trends
Solvang has an AllTransit performance score of 1.2, with approximately 1.0 percent of commuters using transit. This score is lower than Santa Barbara County, which has a performance score of 8.8.

Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to cities and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Solvang has a walk score of 19 out of 100, which means the city is considered car dependent and almost all errands require a car.

Santa Ynez Valley Transit provides bus service in the Santa Ynez Valley, and the City of Solvang is the service administrator for the joint powers authority. Santa Ynez Valley Transit has two fixed-routes and Dial-A-Ride services for seniors and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) certified patrons. The fixedroute service provides connections between Buellton, Solvang, Santa Ynez, and Los Olivos. Riders are provided a demand response (Dial-A-Ride) service on Sundays, and service from Monday through Saturday between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The City of Lompoc provides a Wine Country Express, servicing Solvang each weekday with three trips throughout the day. Additionally, Amtrak has bus stops in Solvang for regional connection.

Based on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, the highest percentage of transit dependent people are those over the age of 65. Solvang contains double the percentage of elderly transit dependent people (21 percent) to other northern county cities (10 percent). Feedback from the City’s Fair Housing Survey identified the importance of public transportation to commercial centers for seniors who may not be able to drive. Other transit dependent people in the area are those aged under

14. Where 17 percent of the population is transit dependent. 697
H-A-54 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 24 Public Transit and Affordable Housing (Santa Barbara County) Source: SBCAG Connected 2050 RTP-SCS
698
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-55 Access to Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores measure educational outcomes using math and reading proficiency (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time) and student poverty indicators (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018- 2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socio-economic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Santa Barbara County is illustrated in Figure 25. Positive education outcomes are common through the central and eastern and southeastern coastal areas of Santa Barbara County and lower education outcomes are prevalent in the northwest portion of the county. The areas with the highest educational scores correlate to areas with predominantly White populations, such as areas like Buellton, Solvang, Santa Ynez, Goleta, Montecito, and areas of Orcutt (Figure 21). Areas with lower education outcomes correspond with areas with higher concentrations of poverty (Figure 17) and higher concentrations of low- and moderate income households (Figure 13) such as neighborhoods in Santa Maria and Lompoc.

Local Trends
Solvang is served by the Solvang School District, Ballard School District, and Santa Ynez Union High School District. The Solvang School District consists of one school, Solvang Elementary, which serves grades K-8 and has a student enrollment of approximately 600 students.7 A small portion of the northern area of Solvang is located within the Ballard School District, which consists of one school, Ballard Elementary, for students K-6.8 Santa Ynez Union High School District consists of two schools, Refugio High and Santa Ynez Valley Union high, with a total student population of about 8649.

Figure 26 shows Solvang’s TCAC scores related to access to education on a census tract level. The entire city has more positive education outcomes.
7 National Center for Education Statistics
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0637110 8 http://www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Barbara/Santa-Ynez-Valley-Union-High 9 National Center for Education Statistics
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0635850 699
H-A-56 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 25 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
700
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-57 Figure 26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
701
H-A-58 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic outcomes. Access to high-quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and consider poverty (the percent of the population with an income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line), adult education (the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above), employment (the percent of adults between age 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces), job proximity (the number of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius), and median home values (the value of owner-occupied units). A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 10 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
According to the Regional AI, the unemployment rate of Santa Barbara County is steadily decreasing.

However, this trend assessment was made utilizing pre-COVID data. Since then, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in February 2022 that the County’s unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. This is still a downward trend in unemployment from 9 percent levels in 2010. 2015-2019 ACS estimates, show Santa Barbara County had a labor force participation rate of 64.1 percent of persons 16 years and older, which is approximately 0.3 percent higher than the labor force participation rate for the county in 2014.

Figure 27 shows a variety of economic outcomes across Santa Barbara County. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified in the western and southern portions of the county, west of Lompoc and near the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. Conversely, the cities of Guadalupe, Santa Maria, Lompoc, and rural areas in the central and eastern portions of the county had concentrations of census tracts with less positive economic outcomes. Estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the average salary in Santa Barbara County in 2021 was $64,528. An overview of mean salary by occupation is provided in Table 14.

Table 14 Mean Salary by Occupation (Santa Barbara County) Occupation Average Salary
Management Occupations $128,272
Legal Occupations $124,371
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $111,152
10 MTC 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities 702
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-59 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $112,612 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $108,261
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $83,242
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $86,277
Construction and Extraction Occupations $62,859
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations $70,789
Protective Service Occupations $78,664
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $82,548 Community and Social Service Occupations $63,631
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $57,852 Sales and Related Occupations $48,551
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $50,389
Production Occupations $44,787
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $42,201
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations $40,659
Personal Care and Service Occupations $42,397
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $34,257
Healthcare Support Occupations $38,900
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $38,101 All Occupations $64,528
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage Data, 2022 703
H-A-60 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
704
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-61 Local Trends
Known for its rich culture in Danish tradition and architecture, Solvang is a nationwide tourist destination, providing the residents economic opportunity to offer arts and entertainment for tourists.

The largest occupational category in Solvang is arts/entertainment/recreation, followed by manufacturing. These two categories accounted for just under half of all the jobs in Solvang. According to ACS 2015-2019 estimates, education/health/social services and professional services are the next largest categories, which consist of 11.8 percent and 11.5 percent of all jobs, respectively. In contrast to the county, the smallest occupational category in Solvang is agriculture/forestry/hunting/ fishing/mining. Agriculture/forestry/hunting/fishing/mining is the third largest occupational category in Santa Barbara County, making up approximately, 10.3 percent of all jobs in the county. Table 15 summarizes employment characteristics by industry for Solvang and Santa Barbara County.

The Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Solvang, updated in 2016, outlined key initiatives for expanding Solvang’s retail and service economy to create year-round opportunity for retail and hospitality sectors in Solvang. The plan worked to complement Solvang’s commercial character while providing revenue for both Solvang and the Santa Ynez valley through regional attractions such as wine touring, cycling and outdoor recreation. Retail and hospitality jobs generally fall under the sales, food preparation and serving, and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupational categories which typically have lower mean annual wages compared to the overall county mean salary. 705
H-A-62 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 15 2014-2018 Employment Characteristics (Solvang and Santa Barbara County) Industry 2014-2018 ACS
% of City
Employment
% of County
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and hunting,
mining

0.8 10.3
Construction 3.4 6.7
Manufacturing 17.8 8.4
Wholesale Trade 1.7 2.5
Retail Trade 6.0 8.0
Transportation and warehousing, Utilities 1.3 3.6
Information 1.2 2.0
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3.5 5.5
Professional Services 11.5 12.8
Education, health, and social services 11.8 20.9
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 25.0 9.1
Other Services, except Public Administration 10.0 4.8
Public Administration 6.1 5.4
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage Data, 2022 According to the TCAC opportunity map for economic outcomes, shown in Figure 28, the entire city has less positive economic outcomes.

As shown on Figure 29, access to jobs is highest in the center of Solvang, particularly along Mission Drive. This reflects the arts/entertainments/recreation job availability, as this area is central to the tourist downtown area. The index score of 60-80 is the highest jobs proximity for Solvang, where the very northern and southern portions have a score of 40-60. This is consistent with land uses throughout the city. The northern and west areas of Solvang primarily consist of low density residential development, and the southern area consists of low density residential development, Alisal Golf Course, and Alisal Ranch. The central area of the city along Mission Drive include uses with greater number of jobs, with a mix of lower and moderate density residential development and commercial, professional-office, and industrial development.

Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table 16. About 3.6 percent of the total employed, and 0.0 percent of total unemployed population had a disability, according to 2010-2014 706
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-63 ACS estimates. ACS estimates for 2015-2019 show those employed who had a disability increase to about 4.1 percent of total employed population and those unemployed who had a disability increased to 3.9 percent.

Table 16 Employment Status by Disability Status (Solvang) 2010-2014 2015-2019
% of Total
Employed
% of Total
Unemployed
% of Total
Employed
% of Total
Unemployed
No Disability 2,245 (96.4%) 293 (100%) 2,664 (95.9%) 148 (96.1%) With a Disability 84 (3.6%) 0 (0%) 113 (4.1%) 6 (3.9%)
Total 2,329 293 2,777 154
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
707
H-A-64 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 28 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
708
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-65 Figure 29 Job Proximity Index (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
709
H-A-66 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Healthy Environment
Access to a healthy environment is necessary for the communities found within the city to thrive.

Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses patterns in the disparities found within the different neighborhoods and protected area groups. As previously mentioned, these disparities can vary from air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). High scoring census tracts tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status.

Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map shows the majority of Santa Barbara County has relatively low overall percentile scores, ranging from 1 to 50. Areas with higher CalEnviroScreen percentile scores, are generally located in urban centers, particularly within the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. These areas with higher percentile scores correspond with areas that have higher nonWhite populations, higher LMI populations, and higher poverty rates. Figure 30 shows that the Northern region within and west of the city of Santa Maria and parts of the cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara have the highest scores of the region and are most impacted by/vulnerable to pollution. Rural areas of the county generally have low percentile scores. The highest score is shown in the areas of the county west of Santa Maria, which could be explained by the air quality impacts from the coastal dunes and activities occurring there.
710
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-67 Figure 30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Santa Barbara Region) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
711
H-A-68 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Local Trends
Solvang has relatively low CalEnviroScreen percentile scores, ranging from the 10th to 20th percentile, which indicates census tracts in Solvang have a healthier environment compared to 80 to 90 percent of census tracts in the state. Compared to other parts of the county, Solvang has a better CalEnviroScreen percentile score than western and northeastern parts of the county. Figure 31 shows CalEnviroScreen percentile scores for Solvang. The northern census tract in the city scores slightly higher than the southern census tract. CalEnviroScreen states the southern census tract contains or is nearby waterbodies containing nine impairments. However, this census tract is very large and primarily includes rural areas outside of Solvang, within the unincorporated areas of the county. Therefore, residents within Solvang are not necessarily exposed to contaminated waterbodies.

Solvang’s CalEnviroScreen scores are considered low, and no SB 535 disadvantaged communities are present in the city. Figure 32 shows TCAC environmental scores for Solvang and reinforces CalEnviroScreen data suggesting the northern area has more positive environmental outcomes compared to the southern area. However, when accounting for socioeconomic conditions and the presence sensitive populations, the southern tract has a healthier environmental outcome than the northern tract, as shown in Figure 31.
712
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-69 Figure 31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Solvang) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
713
H-A-70 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Solvang) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
714
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-71 Disproportionate Housing Needs,
Including Displacement
Disproportionate Housing Needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.

Cost Burden
Cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs.

Households spending a minimum of 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs are considered cost burdened, whereas households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low income households and persons in protected classes typically disproportionately experience housing cost burden.

Regional Trends
According to HUD CHAS 2014 – 2018 estimates, there are a total of 144,960 households throughout the Santa Barbara region. Of this total, about 15 percent of owner-occupied and 25 percent of renteroccupied households are cost burdened, respectively. According to the AI, the general trend shows that rent costs continue to increase. The City of Carpinteria saw the largest increase in average rent costs of 32 percent between 2010 and 2017. Table 17 breaks down costs between unit types in Santa Barbara County.

Table 17 Average Rent for Home or Apartment (2020)
Santa
Barbara,
County Buellton
Carpinteria Goleta LompocSanta
Maria Solvang
Studio Apartment $1,847 $1,722 $1,941 $1,884 $1,523 $1,552 $1,883 1 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$2,124 $1,981 $2,232 $2,166 $1,752 $1,784 $2,166
2 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$2,478 $2,311 $2,604 $2,527 $2,044 $2,082 $2,526
715
H-A-72 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 3 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$3,266 $3,046 $3,432 $3,331 $2,693 $2,744 $3,330
4 Bedroom Home
or Apartment
$3,733 $3,500 $3,922 $3,807 $3,079 $3,136 $3,806
Source: bestplaces.net Data Engine, 2022
Figure 33 shows overpayment by renters throughout the region. Western and urban areas within the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Santa Barbara have between 60 and 80 percent of renter households paying 30 percent or more of household income on housing. Isla Vista has the highest percent of overpayment by renters in the county, with over 80 percent of renter households in some areas that are cost burdened, likely tied to the University of California Santa Barbara and the low levels of incomes of students.
716
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-73 Figure 33 Overpayment by Renters (Santa Barbara County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
717
H-A-74 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Local Trends
Housing cost burden affects a substantial portion of households in Solvang, as displayed in 718
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-75 Figure 34. In most of the city, between 40 and 60 percent of renter households are overpaying for housing. The southern part of the city has the rate of lowest cost burden, with 20 to 40 percent of households overpaying for housing. However, most of the area consists of Alisal Ranch and Golf Course and the limited number of housing units in this area consist of large, single-family homes. As seen in Table 18, over half of renters and almost one third of homeowners in Solvang are cost burdened. Lower income households and renters are more likely to experience housing problems, including cost burden than owners or moderate/above-moderate income households.

Table 18 Housing Cost Burden (Solvang)
Household by Tenure,
Income, and Housing
Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely Low Income
(0-30% AMI)
115 145 260
With any housing
problem
115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
With cost burden >30% 115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
With cost burden >50% 115 100.0% 115 79.3% 230 88.5%
Very Low Income (31-
50% AMI)
125 45 170
With any housing
problem
115 92.0% 0 0.0% 115 67.7%
With cost burden >30% 110 88.0% 0 0.0% 110 64.7%
With cost burden >50% 30 24.0% 0 0.0% 30 17.7%
Low Income (51-80%
AMI)
510 1,115 1,625
With any housing
problem
200 39.2% 240 21.5% 440 27.1%
With cost burden >30% 120 23.5% 239 21.4% 359 22.1%
With cost burden >50% 0 0.0% 74 6.6% 74 4.6%
Moderate & AboveModerate Income (>80%
AMI)
900 1,480 2,380
With any housing
problem
550 61.1% 445 30.1% 995 41.7%
719
H-A-76 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 With cost burden >30% 465 51.7% 449 30.3% 914 38.4%
With cost burden >50% 250 27.8% 259 17.5% 509 21.4%
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.

Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.

Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release 720
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-77 Figure 34 Overpayment of Renters (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
721
H-A-78 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Substandard Housing
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as a factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs.

Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.

Regional Trends
As of 2019, approximately 79 percent of all housing units in Santa Barbara County were built before 1990. These older units potentially require minor repairs and modernization improvements. Reflecting the housing boom that occurred during the 1980s, 15 percent of the County’s housing stock was constructed between 1980 and 1989.

Figure 35 Housing Stock Age (2014-2018)
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019; Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2014-2018.

Local Trends
In Solvang approximately 80 percent of all housing units were built prior to 1990, which is comparable to Santa Barbara County. Almost half of the city’s housing stock was constructed in the 1970s and 1980s.

Built
2014 or
later
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1939 or
earlier
Santa Barbara 1.50% 2.00% 7.80% 9.90% 14.90% 18.60% 20.10% 12.80% 3.90% 8.60% Solvang 3.60% 1.30% 4.60% 11% 23% 23.10% 11.10% 12.30% 4.60% 5.50%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%
Santa Barbara Solvang
722
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-79 Table 19 summarizes the availability of plumbing and kitchen facilities for housing units in Solvang. In the past, lack of telephone service was also an indicator of housing conditions. Today, with the widespread availability of cell and internet phone services, many households have chosen not to install land line telephone services, and availability of telephone service is no longer considered an indicator of substandard housing conditions. As shown in Table 19, as little as 1.2 percent of housing lack plumbing and/or kitchen facilities.

Table 19 Substandard Units (2019)
Condition Number Percentage
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 10 <0.0%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 19 0.8%
Total occupied substandard units 29 1.2%
Total occupied units 2,380
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2019 Table B25053 and B25049 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is reflective of various living conditions; some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing but may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home.

Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations:
(1) a family lives in a home that is too small; (2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or (3) unrelated individuals or families are doubling up to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded conditions since some cultures tend to have a larger household size than others due to the preference of living with extended family members.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger families, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.
723
H-A-80 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 5-Year ACS estimates, 13.1 percent of households are overcrowded, and

6.3 percent of households are severely overcrowded throughout the county. Table 20 compares the levels of overcrowding of renters and owners in Solvang and Santa Barbara County. A higher proportion of renter households compared to owner households experienced overcrowding.

Table 20 Overcrowding by Tenure
Renter-Occupied
Households
Owner-Occupied
Households
Total Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Solvang
Overcrowded (1+ occupants
per room)
72 7.8% 7 0.5% 79 3.3%
Severely Overcrowded (1.5+
occupants per room)
60 6.5% 0 0.0% 60 2.5%
Santa Barbara County
Overcrowded (1+ occupants
per room)
11,837 17.1% 3,573 4.7% 15,410 10.6%
Severely Overcrowded (1.5+
occupants per room)
4,655 6.7% 1,034 1.37% 5,689 3.92%
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, Table B25014.

Figure 36 shows the percent of households that are overcrowded throughout Santa Barbara County.

The prevalence of overcrowding varies among jurisdictions, with the highest percentage of overall overcrowding occurring in northwestern areas in Santa Maria, and Lompoc, followed by areas in the City of Santa Barbara and areas of Carpentaria and Isla Vista. These areas with the highest percent of overcrowding in the North Coast overlap with high proportions of minority residents and lower median incomes.

Local Trends
Based on 2015-2019 5-Year ACS estimates, 2.5 percent of households are overcrowded in Solvang. A higher proportion of renter households (7.8 percent) are overcrowded compared to owner households (0.5 percent). Figure 37 shows the distribution of overcrowded households in Solvang. Overcrowding throughout Solvang is lower than the statewide average. 724
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-81 Figure 36 Overcrowding (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer 2022
725
H-A-82 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 37 Overcrowding (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
726
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-83 Homelessness
California Government Code Section 65583(1)(6) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; or • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
• A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
• An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
• A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Regional Trends
According to the 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, approximately 1,962 persons experiencing homelessness reside in the county, an increase from the previous count in 2020. Pointin-time estimates are generally accepted as an undercount of the total unhoused. The county’s pointin-time count found that 76 percent of the homeless population had been experiencing homelessness for over one year. Additionally, 39 percent of the homeless population had a mental health disability, 26 percent had a physical disability, and 10 percent had a developmental disability. The majority of homeless individuals identified as White (83 percent), followed by Black/African American (8 percent), multiple races (4 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (3 percent). An overview of homelessness in Solvang and surrounding cities is provided in Table 21. 727
H-A-84 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 21 Homelessness in Solvang and Surrounding Cities (2022) Jurisdiction Count
% of Total Homeless
Population in Santa Barbara County
Carpinteria 22 1.1%
Goleta 91 4.6%
Santa Barbara 822 41.9%
Isla Vista 112 5.7%
Lompoc 290 14.8%
Buellton/Solvang /Santa Ynez Valley 12 0.6%
Santa Maria 457 23.3%
Guadalupe 2 0.1%
Unincorporated 155 7.9%
Santa Barbara County Total 1,962 100%
Source: 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, Santa Barbara County, 2022 Local Trends
According to the 2022 Santa Barbara County Point-In-Time Count, there are an estimated 12 persons considered to be homeless in Buellton/Solvang/Santa Ynez Valley. This is fewer than many other parts of the County, including the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, Isla Vista and Santa Barbara.

Compared to areas with higher numbers of persons considered to be homeless, Buellton/Solvang/Santa Ynez Valley has a smaller overall population and are located in further from denser and populated urban areas that have better access to services for those who are homeless.

Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk of or experiencing homelessness.
728
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-85 To analyze displacement risk, the UDP has established categories that reflect varying levels of displacement vulnerability. Areas categorized as susceptible to displacement are predominately low income or mixed income neighborhoods that may have experienced displacement but exhibit characteristics of neighborhood stability and affordability and have the potential to develop an increasing risk of displacement in the future. Areas categorized as at-risk of or experiencing gentrification refer to neighborhoods that demonstrate characteristics of increasing housing costs, changes in housing supply, and are located near communities that have also experienced increasing housing costs and an increasing risk of displacement in the future. The stable moderate/mixed income category refers to neighborhoods that have moderate- to high income residents that are not at-risk of becoming neighborhoods that exclude all but wealthy households. The stable/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.

Regional Trends
According to the AI, residents located in the central inland, and parts of the South Coast portions of the County are facing relatively less risk of displacement. Households with high cost burdened rates are found in the North Coast area of the county, especially around Santa Maria and Lompoc. Some communities in South Coast also are facing risk of displacement.

Sensitive communities, as shown in Figure 38, represent areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are concentrated throughout the urban areas in the county. In the northwestern part of the county, census tracts in Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Guadalupe, experience a greater risk of displacement than in more affluent cities such as Buellton. In the southern half of the county, there are some vulnerable communities in the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Carpinteria. These areas are correlated to tracts that experience higher rates of overcrowding, overpayment, and tracts with higher percentages of non-White populations.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure 39, residents in the northern census tract are at risk of displacement. In the southern census tract, there is lower displacement risk. According to the AI, Solvang is one of three cities in the county that had an increase of median income between 2010 and 2017. Meanwhile, the AI identified that Solvang also experienced one of the largest increases of poverty from 2010 to 2017, from 6 percent of the total population to 15 percent, indicating an increasing gap in income for residents in Solvang. However, 2016-202 ACS estimates show the poverty rate in Solvang decreased to 7 percent.

The poverty rate among children under the age of 18 also decreased from 2017 to 2020, but remained high at approximately 13 percent. In addition, the AI states home values decreased by 4.7 percent and median rent costs increased by 29.7 percent between 2010 and 2017. In 2010 median home values were $723,900 and median rent was $1,165 and in 2017 median home values were $689,700 and median rent was $1,511. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, median home value increased value increased by 5.1 percent between 2017 and 2020 and median rent decreased 13.0 percent to $725,100 and $1,315 respectively. The increasing income gap and increasing housing costs indicate, low income residents in Solvang may be at risk of displacement. Furthermore, nearly half of all renters experience 729
H-A-86 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 housing cost burden compared to 30 percent of owners (Table 18), and if rent raises for these communities, it could leave them at risk of displacement. 730
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-87 Figure 38 Sensitive Communities (Santa Barbara County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
731
H-A-88 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Figure 39 Displacement Risk (Solvang)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
732
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-89 Contributing Factors
To inform the goals, policies, and actions in this Housing Element, the contributing factors are prioritized based on their impact on access to fair housing choice and access to opportunity in Solvang.

Enforcement and Outreach
Contributing factors to enforcement and outreach include:
• Limited information on fair housing rights and services: the City’s website provides minimal information on fair housing rights and services available to residents. There are no links to the County’s Housing Resources website or the Fair Housing Resource Guide for Santa Barbara County website (provided by Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County and Santa Barbara County). While the website does contain a brochure on fair housing and how to file a complaint, the brochure is an older, scanned document and some of the information may be out of date.

The brochure does not include contact information for Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County, which is contracted to provide fair housing services to the HOME Consortium.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Solvang include:
• High percentage of those living with disabilities when compared to the county: While there were no areas within Solvang identified with concentrations of residents living with a disability, there is a high percentage of the population with a disability indicating there is a need for affordable and accessible housing options for those with a disability. • Increasing rent costs: Rent cost has significantly increased in Solvang during the past decade, meaning single-parent households, persons on fixed incomes (seniors and persons with a disability), LMI populations, and single adults without a spouse are less likely to have access to affordable housing, afford housing, and could be at risk of displacement. • Dominance of single-family housing and location and type of affordable housing: Residential development in Solvang primarily consists of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family units. Slightly higher density residential development is located in the center of the city. There is one affordable housing development in Solvang, located in the center of the city.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
While no R/ECAPs meeting HCD criteria were identified in Solvang, the AI recognizes multiple contributing factors to segregation patterns including:
• Concentration of higher density housing in the center of the city and single-family residential housing in other parts of the city: Single-family low-density patterns correlate to predominantly White and higher median household income areas located in northern and southern parts of 733
H-A-90 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Solvang. The central area of the city has higher residential density zoning and more racial/ethnic diversity and lower median household income.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs are:
• Risk of displacement due to an increasing income gap: In addition, overall median household income has increased while the percentage of residents living below the poverty line has also increased. This indicates there is an increasing income gap that could lead to displacement of LMI populations.
• Rising rent costs and cost burden: Rent costs have increased significantly in Solvang over the past decade which causes increased cost burden among renters. Cost burden is prevalent throughout the city, especially in the northern census tract. • Older housing stock: About 80 percent of the city’s housing stock is over 30 years old, indicating there is a large proportion of the housing stock that may be in need of repairs or maintenance.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities were identified:
• Limited transit and limited connectivity to region: Transit access between Solvang and other parts of the County with larger urban centers and employment opportunity is limited. The Clean Air Express is a weekday commuter program that has a bus stop in Buellton and connects to Santa Maria, Goleta, and Santa Barbara. However, there is no stop in Solvang. Amtrack has bus service from Solvang to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Dial-A-Ride services are primarily available to seniors (60+) and ADA registered customers who must apply for ridership eligibility.
• Limited access to high paying jobs: The largest employment sectors in Solvang are arts/entertainment/recreation and manufacturing which have lower median salaries. In addition, the Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Solvang focuses on adding retail and service jobs which also have lower median salaries. Higher paying jobs are concentrated outside of Solvang in larger employment opportunity areas, such as the city of Santa Barbara.
734
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-91 Local Data and Knowledge
As shown throughout this AFFH analysis, the central portions of the city generally experience a higher number of fair housing issues than other areas in Solvang. Fair housing issues in this area include higher levels of minority populations, low and moderate median income, and higher rates of cost burden. The predominant population in this area is White, however, between 21 and 60 percent of the population is non-White.

Stakeholder and Community Input
Community workshops were held on two occasions, March 11, 2022 and May 11, 2022. Common concerns raised by participants included the following:

Lack of access to services in Spanish
Traffic and parking issues indicating limited access to public transit and low walkability and bankability Limiting land use policies in the General Plan constrains available land, preventing development of multifamily housing (particularly regarding visual impacts of development) A Housing Needs Survey was conducted from April 20 to May 21, 2022, with 90 respondents (89 in English and one in Spanish). A Fair Housing Survey was with assisted living facilities, senior housing facilities, religious groups, and local non-profits from July 5 to August 22, 2022. This survey was distributed via email. The following comments regarding fair housing concerns were received:

There is a large senior population with low to moderate income Need for senior housing that is affordable
Need for housing that is accessible for persons with disabilities Lack of transit options for seniors and persons with disabilities Desire for housing with access to commercial centers
Residents are at risk of displacement due to economic hardships of landlords during the pandemic Lack of affordable housing options in the city
Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Solvang that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include the following:

Farmworker Housing
The Santa Ynez Valley is well known for its wineries and vineyards. The city of Solvang is surrounded by working agricultural land, bringing seasonal and migrant farmworkers to the area during certain times of the year. Farmworkers have unique housing needs as they are often seasonal workers and 735
H-A-92 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 living on low income. The number of farmworkers employed in or near Solvang is unknown and there are limited affordable housing options of farmworkers in Solvang.

Access to Transportation for Persons with Disabilities
Solvang has a high percentage of the populating living with one or more disabilities. Persons with disabilities often include older residents who may not be able to drive or who have medical or other needs that require access to services such as medical care. Residents with disabilities have limited transportation opportunities within the city and the region. As discussed earlier, transit connectivity between Solvang and other parts of the county is limited. In addition, while Dial-A-Ride service is available within the Santa Ynez Valley area, persons with disabilities are required to submit ADA certification or apply for eligibility, including information that is to be filled out by a physician. Residents do not all have access to adequate medical care and may not be able to complete the application.

City’s Danish History and Tourism
Solvang was founded by Danish immigrants in the early 20th century. Today, that history is considered an important part of the city’s character and is prominently featured in the architecture and culture of the city. Tourism related to the city’s Danish heritage helps support the economy and culture of the city. The tourism industry provides a number of employment opportunities in the city, however retail and service-related jobs are typically low income. Additionally, tourism drives up property values, increasing housing costs. Low-income jobs combined with increasing property values can lead to displacement for at risk populations.

Subsidized Housing
Figure 40 shows the percent of renter occupied housing units that are occupied by Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients. The southern census tract (89 HCV recipients total) had a higher percent of HCV recipients as renter occupied housing units compared to the northern census tract (16 HCV recipients total). However, both the northern and southern census tracts include unincorporated parts of the county, outside city limits. Therefore, some of the HCV recipients in these census tracts do not necessarily reside within Solvang. It is unknown how many HCV recipients reside within the city. The southern part of the city within the southern census tract includes Alisal Golf Course and Alisal Ranch.

Housing in Alisal Ranch consists of low density, single-family homes that are more expensive than housing in other parts of the city. It is likely HCV recipients in the southern census tract were living in unincorporated parts of the county rather than within Alisal Ranch.

Potential sites that can accommodate lower income units in the Sites Inventory are focused along Alamo Pintado Road, in the northern census tract. This census tract contains fewer housing choice voucher recipients, which improves the balance of distribution of HCV recipients in the city. 736
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-93 Figure 40 Housing Choice Vouchers
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
737
H-A-94 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Sites Inventory
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned for the development of housing for households sufficient to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the RHNA. In the context of AFFH, the site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Opportunity Areas
HCD and TCAC have created opportunity maps to identify areas throughout the state whose characteristics support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. The HCD/TCAC Opportunity Areas Map ranks census tracts from highest resource to low resource based on these outcomes. A census tract with a designation of High Resource would indicate that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents. Most of the city is considered moderate resource while a large area of the northern portion of the city is considered low resource.

The city limit partially encompasses 2 census tracts, which are categorized by the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map as entirely high resources areas. For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by the TCAC/HCD map report on access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. This categorization of the 2 census tracts in the city indicates that, across the city, residents have low, moderate, and high access to positive economic outcomes, and high access to educational and environmental outcomes. The 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map maps influenced the locations of potential lower income sites in the city.

The city’s residential neighborhoods are primarily built out with some residentially zoned vacant land available for development. Therefore, in addition to identifying available vacant sites, the City has identified vacant residential properties that can be rezoned to increase density to accommodate affordable housing development. The lower income sites identified in the Sites Inventory are concentrated along Alamo Pintado Road, north of Mission Drive. The entire city is designated high resource by TCAC and has high access to educational and environmental resources and low access to economic resources. A total of four two vacant sites were identified to accommodate very low- and low-income housing units, with a total capacity to accommodate 77 96 lower income units. An additional 232 vacant sites accommodating moderate- and above moderate-income housing units were identified and are spread throughout the city in high resource areas. Figure 41 shows the vacant parcels identified in the Sites Inventory in relation to the TCAC scores of each census tract. 738
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-95 Figure 41 Location of Sites to Meet RHNA
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
739
H-A-96 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
740
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 | H-A-97 Improved Conditions
Spatial analysis shows that tracts with low- and moderate-income households, concentrated minorities, and housing problems are predominately located in the central areas of the city. All of the sites identified in the Sites Inventory are in high resource areas, with sites accommodating abovemoderate income housing units located throughout the city, including central areas of the city. Sites that accommodate lower income units in the low economic resource areas are concentrated along Alamo Pintado Road.

Exacerbated Conditions
The central area of the city contains census blocks with higher levels of concentrated minorities and cost burdened households. The city’s northern census block has the smallest non-White population and the highest household median income in the city. According to the TCAC opportunity map, the entire city has lower economic outcome scores. Vacant sites that could accommodate moderate and above-moderate units were identified throughout the city, including central areas. The Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city.

Integration and Segregation: Race and Income
Census tracts with the highest concentration of minority races and LMI populations are located in the central part of the city. As stated previously, moderate and above-moderate income sites are identified throughout these areas.

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence While Solvang has no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (per HUD’s definition), some census blocks with a high concentration of minorities and lower median income were found in the central part of the city. Several vacant sites are located in these vulnerable areas and could support moderate income units and above-moderate income units. In addition, sites accommodating lower income units are located outside of the central part of the city, in the northeast and southern areas of the city.

Access to Opportunity
The city is categorized into two census tracts, both of which are considered high resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas. Sites accommodating moderate and above-moderate income units are scattered on vacant parcels throughout the city.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
The site inventory focused sites on vacant areas of the city to reduce potential impacts and exacerbate displacement risks.
.
741
H-A-98 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Table 22 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
• Fair housing outreach and
housing mobility strategies
• Limited distribution of information on fair
housing rights and services
• Information on fair housing limited to
English
• Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Program HE-V: Housing Information Transparency
• Housing stock that is older
and lacks diversity
• Older housing stock
• Dominance of single-family housing
• Limiting local land use policies
• Program HE-A: Code Enforcement
• Program HE-B: Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Program • Program HE-H: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Development • Program HE-J: Adequate Sites Program
• Program HE-K: Mixed-Use Development
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
• Program HE-U: Missing Middle Housing
• Lack of affordable housing • Dominance of single family housing • Location and type of affordable housing
• Lack of farmworker/workforce housing
• Program HE-C: Rental Assistance
• Program HE-F: Local Workforce Housing
• Program HE-G: Density Bonus Program
• Program HE-M: Lot Mergers
• Program HE-N: Affordable Housing Incentives Program
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
• Program HE-Q: Housing for Disabled Persons
• Residents vulnerable to
displacement
• Increasing income gap
• Rising rent costs
• High levels of cost burden among renter
households
• High percentage of residents with a
disability
• Program HE-F: Local Workforce Housing
• Program HE-G: Density Bonus Program
• Program HE-I: Application for Grants and Loans
• Program HE-J: Adequate Sites Program
• Program HE-K : Mixed-Use Development
• Program HE-M: Lot Consolidation
742
Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
HCD Review Draft, February 2023 Internal Draft, November 2022 | H-A-99 • High percentage of senior residents
• Limited access to high paying jobs
• Program HE-N: Affordable Housing Incentives Program
• Program HE-O: Municipal Code Updates
• Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Program HE-R: Universal Design
• Limited transit access • Limited transit options and poor connectivity to region
• High number of residents with a disability
and senior residents relying on public
transit
• Program HE-P: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
743
H-A-100 | Public Review Draft, December 2022HCD Review Draft, February 2023 This page intentionally left blank.
744

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppBH-B-1 Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Housing and Neighborhood Conservation

1. Code Enforcement
Bring substandard
housing units into
compliance with codes.
(Policy 1.1, 1.4)
Planning, Building
Department
Continue to carry out code
enforcement activities.

Ongoing In 2018, created a half time code
compliance position and filled it after
interviewing candidates.

Continue; add actions
related to assisting lowincome household with
addressing code
violations through
technical assistance of
funding, if available.

General Fund

2. Housing Rehabilitation
Assistance Program
Assist residents in
repairing, upgrading, and
improving single-family
and multifamily housing.
(Policy 1.2, 1.3, 1.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Assist 5 homeowners and 3
renter families. Advertise
program.
2015-2023 Under the emPower (CHERP) County
program, 2 homeowners were
assisted in 2018 to upgrade and
improve their household energy
efficiency through this subsidized
program, for a total of 3 homeowners
and 30 energy coach visits.

Continue; identify potential
funding sources and
commit to a minimum
number of funding
pursuits in the planning
period.

HOME

3. Section 8 Rental
Assistance
County Housing
Authority
Continue to participate.

Encourage property owners to
Ongoing Not completed. Continue; change to
reflect new name
745
AppBH-B-2 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Extend rental subsidies to
extremely low and very
low-income households.
(Policy 2.1)
HUD list rentals with the Housing
Authority.
“Housing Choice
Vouchers” and add
specific actions.

4. Mobile Home and
Mobile Home Park
Preservation
Preserve mobile homes
and mobile home parks as
affordable housing
options.
(Policy 2.1, 3.1)
Planning / Community
Development
Maintain MHP designation
and continue to allow mobile
homes in single-family
residential zones ministerially.

Ongoing The Zoning Ordinance was amended
to remove the requirement for a
Conditional Use Permit for mobile
homes with permanent foundations
regardless of lot size.

Continue. Add actions that
meaningfully work
preserve existing mobile
home parks and
affordability.

None

5. Preservation of
Community Character
Administer design
standards in the TRC
zone.
(Policy 1.3, 3.3)
Planning / Community
Development, BAR
Preserve and maintain the
Danish/Northern European
design theme in the City's
Village area.

Ongoing March 2019 RFP released to update
the Design Guidelines, Community
Design Element of the General Plan,
and the sign ordinance.

Continue; potential to add
an action to establish
objective design
standards specific to the
TRC zone.

General Fund
746

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppBH-B-3 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Housing Production

6. Local Workforce
Housing
Increase supply of
affordable housing for the
local workforce.
(Policy 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Planning / Community
Development
Provide incentives to increase
the supply of housing
affordable to Solvang’s lowerincome workforce.

At least
annually,
2015-2023
The City has developed a list of
incentives to encourage more interest
in developing workforce housing
through the use of current State Law
and funding through the HOME
Consortium.

Continue; expand with
new actions and
objectives.

General Fund, HOME

7. Density Bonus
Ordinance
Provide incentives
required by State law.
(Policy 2.10, 3.5)
Planning / Community
Development
Amendment of Program 7:

Density Bonus Ordinance
2015 City Attorney determination that
deferring to State Law is adequate.

Continue; add action to
update Municipal Code to
reflect new State law
requirements.

General Fund

8. Second Unit
Development
Planning / Community
Development
Encourage the construction of
second units to meet the
needs of the very-low, low,
and moderate-income
Ongoing New State laws passed in 2016 (SB
1069 and AB 2299) and the new State
Laws in 2019 superseded previous
ordinance, Staff is following HCD's
Continue; add specific
actions to bring the
Municipal Code into
compliance with recent
747
AppBH-B-4 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Facilitate development of
second units.
(Policy 2.9, 3.6)
General Fund households. Provide
information on the City’s
website, and with an
informational brochure.
guidance on approving ADUs
(Accessory Dwelling Units) as well as
their staff's comments and feedback.

Solvang's ADU ordinance will be
finalized and brought to Council in
2019. Staff is currently processing on
a case-by-case basis. the city has
issued 10 ADU's 2018-2019
State laws and to
incentivize development
(required).

9. N/A
Program 9 was eliminated
in the Fourth Cycle
Housing Element.

N/A N/A N/A Eliminated in the Fourth Cycle
Housing Element
Remove Program 9 from
enumeration.

N/A

10. Mortgage Credit
Certificate
Expand home ownership
opportunities.
(Policy 2.7, 2.8)
County Housing
Authority
Assist 20 households 2015-2023 County Housing Authority is responsible agency
Continue; add actions to
meet with Housing
Authority annually to
explore additional funding
and other opportunities to
expand the program.

Federal
748

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppBH-B-5 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action

11. Application for Grants
and Loans
Ensure that funds are
available to implement
proposed housing
programs.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 2.7)
Planning / Community
Development
Investigate funds available
annually under Proposition 46
and 1C as well as other
sources. Apply to meet City’s
housing needs.

Ongoing Ongoing Continue; add actions
committing the City to
pursue funding, including
partnering with developers
and non-profits in the
pursuit of project-based
grants.

General Fund
Provision Of Adequate Sites For Housing

12. Adequate Sites
Program
Facilitate availability of
sufficient sites to meet
the City’s share of regional
housing needs.
(Policy 3.1, 3.2, 3.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to inventory sites for
ongoing needs.

Ongoing 2018 evaluated inventory for accuracy
(size) and availability (many of the
vacant parcels currently are going
through entitlement process).

Continue; add actions
related to State law
compliance related to
rezone site requirements,
no-net-loss provisions,
and to provide a publicfacing inventory on the
City website.

General Fund
749
AppBH-B-6 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action

13. Mixed-use
Development
Continue to encourage
residential uses in the
Village & commercial
areas by implementing
and maintaining zoning
standards for residential
densities that encourage
pedestrian-oriented,
mixed-use development to
help meet the needs of
Solvang’s fair-share
housing needs.
(Policy 3.2, 3.4, 3.5)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to encourage
residential uses in the Village
Area that encourage
pedestrian-oriented, mixeduse development to help meet the needs of Solvang’s fairshare housing needs.

Ongoing Ongoing Continue; add actions as
needed; add action
encouraging mixed use
through the General Plan
Update process. This
program work to increase
housing mobility (an HCD
requirement).

General Fund

14. Infill Incentives
Ordinance
Facilitate development on
infill parcels.
(Policy 3.5)
Planning / Community
Development
Develop an ordinance that
specifies flexible standards
and incentives for infill
development.
2016 Planning staff changes in 2016
delayed plan making to achieve this
goal. The current goal is to review infill
development as part of a larger
economic development goal to be set
for 2020 with funding from the
General Plan Update process.

Continue; add new actions
and incentives as
appropriate.

General Fund
750

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppBH-B-7 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action

15. Lot Consolidation
Consolidate lots to
develop housing to lowerincome households.
(Policy 3.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Encourage non-profit
developers and owners of
small sites to identify and
consolidate parcels to
facilitate the development of
housing affordable to lowerincome households.

Ongoing Although not part of a formalized
lower-income housing program, small
sites are being reconfigured to
accommodate higher densities-i.e., a
lot under 5,000 SF was just approved
to construct a duplex in the DR-20
zoning district where a single-family
unit existed. To approve this, staff
supported several modifications as to
setbacks, as this project was the best
and highest use of this property and
was compatible with surrounding
uses.

Continue; Sites 1 and 2
and Sites 4 and 5 have
potential for lot
consolidation.

General Fund
Removal Of Governmental Constraints

16. Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
District
Provide flexibility in
developments and
facilitate creative housing
opportunities.
(Policy 4.1)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to use the PRD
designation.

Ongoing Although this is still a zoning district
designation in Solvang as an overlay,
the availability of large acreages in the
City at this time that could use this
designation for residential projects is
very limited.

Limited potential, not
required. Suggest delete.

General Fund
751
AppBH-B-8 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action

17. Affordable Housing
Incentives Program
Facilitate development of
affordable housing.
(Policy 4.2)
Planning / Community
Development
Provide regulatory
concessions and other
incentives, including a density
bonus to encourage
affordable housing.
2015-2023 Density bonus offerings follow State
law. Solvang participates in the HOME
program with a consortium of other
cities that allocate monies among
various jurisdictions. Solvang received
an allocation for the Solvang Senior
Apartment housing in 2016.

Continue; add meaningful
actions and incentives.

General Fund
Equal Housing Opportunity

18. Fair Housing Program
Promote fair housing
practices.
(Policy 5.1, 5.3)
Planning / Community
Development
Continue to support the State
Office of Fair Employment
and Housing, CLRA, and equal
opportunity lending programs.

The City will support efforts
by the County Housing
Authority.

Ongoing Ongoing Continue; add meaningful
actions and expand
program to includes AFFH
requirements and to add
any remaining meaningful
AFFH actions that do not
fall under another
program.

General Fund

19. Housing for Disabled
Persons
Planning / Community
Development
The City will conduct an
evaluation and if any
2015 Solvang codified an ordinance in 2015
(11-12-25), Reasonable
Continue; add actions and
incentives to encourage
752

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppBH-B-9 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Identify and remove
constraints affecting
persons with disabilities.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 5.3, 5.4)
General Fund constraints are identified, will
take actions to address
constraints.

Accommodation, to address the
process for requesting modifications
or exceptions to rules to remove
regulatory barriers to housing or
housing related facilities with
disabilities.
development; add a review
and evaluation of the
Reasonable
Accommodation
ordinance in 2024; add an
action to engage with
developers and nonprofits to identify
constraints in 2024

20. Universal Design
Encourage design
features that enhance
accessibility and safety.
(Policy 2.4, 2.5, 5.3, 5.4)
Planning / Community
Development
Work with homebuilders to
offer universal design options
prior to constructions.

Consider State model
ordinance for universal
design, if feasible.
2015-2023 Will place on universal design features
and implementation on City website.

Continue; add actions
related to engagement
with homebuilders to
encourage this housing
type. General Fund

21. Emergency &
Transitional Housing
Facilities and Services
Promote and facilitate
Emergency and
Transitional Housing
Facilities
(Policy 3.8, 3.9)
Planning / Community
Development
Meet with homeless service
providers periodically to
evaluate current and future
needs for a homeless or
transitional housing facility.

Ongoing Emergency and Transitional Housing
Facilities added as permitted uses in
R-1, E-1, DR, and PRD zoning districts
in 2015.

Continue; add actions
related to annual
engagement with
providers.

General Fund
753
AppBH-B-10 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 Program
Responsible Agency
Funding Source
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended Sixth
Cycle Action
Energy Conservation

22. Energy Conservation
Alternatives
Incorporation of energy
saving features, energy
saving materials, and
energy efficient systems
and design for residential
development.
(Policy 4.4)
Planning / Community
Development
The City will develop a Green
Building Ordinance and public
outreach awareness.

Ongoing Ongoing Continue; update with new
actions and objectives.

General Fund
754

9. HOUSING
Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023 | AppCH-C-1
Appendix C: Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The City received a number of comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element. The vast majority of these comments were received from residents that live near sites with a proposed rezone. These comments indicated that the capacity assumptions for Site C were infeasible due to site constraints, traffic concerns, and drainage issues. In response to these comments, the realistic capacity for Site C has been reduced to assume that a smaller portion of the site will be developed for affordable housing due to environmental constraints, particularly steep slopes and drainage issues. HCD does not consider traffic concerns an appropriate reason to exclude a lower income site from the inventory.

Additionally, as documented below, the City has expanded affordable housing and infill development incentives to assist with the costs of constraints on sites developed for affordable housing.

Additionally, a number of public comments took issue with the City’s initial realistic capacity assumptions for sites A-C, but particularly on Site C. The capacity calculations were set as conservative goals, with only a portion of capacity being assumed for lower-income development. In response to these comments, the City has revised capacity calculations to identify lower income capacity on each site, without assuming additional moderate or above moderate capacity.

Public comments also noted calculation errors in the RHNA Summary Table, including an overcalculation of the RHNA buffer related to no-net-loss. These errors have been corrected and the Sites Inventory analysis and summary table have been revised accordingly.

A public comment from the owner of Site A asked the City to remove the site from consideration in the Housing Element.

The owner expressed that the ownership group is not interested in higher density development on the site. Due to this comment, Site A was removed from the Housing Element.

Finally, a comment from the property owner of Site C noted potential incentives to overcome non-governmental and governmental constraints to affordable housing development in the community. In response, the City has revised the Draft Element to further incentivize affordable housing development as follows:
• Program HE-I: as requested in the public comment, the City has committed to maintaining a mailing list of developers, property owners, and non-profit agencies and distributing information on funding opportunities to these parties directly.
• Program HE-J has been included to rezone properties for compliance with 65583.2 (h) and (i), which requires a minimum density of 20 du/ac. The City’s maximum density is currently 20 du/ac, lower-income development on these sites can incorporate additional units through use of State density bonus law. • Program HE-N has been revised to identify “parking reductions equivalent to the percentage of affordable units provided” and “additional building height” as potential incentives for affordable housing development. o Ministerial review will be provided to project providing 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households, or 100 percent of units affordable to moderate income households, in compliance with State law. Incentives will not be offered projects that do not meet the affordability thresholds. • Program HE-N mentions State and Federal funding to be used to incentivize affordable housing development and asks for greater specificity. The City has revised the action in question to, “Use state and federal funding to 755
AppBH-C-2 | Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022HCD Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, February 2023
offset costs of governmental and non-governmental constraints to affordable housing development. As funds become available, the City shall immediately distribute information to property owners, developers, and local non-profits related to eligibility and application for direct financial assistance.” • Comment #7 related to discretionary development plans and design review for development at 20 dwelling units per acre: The City has revised the text to clarify that the city will adopt objective design standards and a ministerial review process for developments that meet affordability thresholds (20 percent lower-income or 100 percent moderate-income) and that no discretionary review will be applied to such projects. • Program HE-L: We have identified reduced setbacks and parking requirements for affordable infill projects as potential incentives for the City to explore. We have also moved the timing of the program up from three years to one year.
• Program HE-U: The City has added specificity to the program, including engagement with local developers, property owners, and non-profit agencies to identify constraints and meaningful incentives to infill and missing middle housing development.
• Comment #9: The reference to Table H-38 was an error and has been corrected. Please see Table H-46, which documents housing types permitted by zone.
• Calculations in Table H-1 were revised to correct an error in the calculation of total units permitted in the 5th cycle.
• References to Southern California Edison assistance programs were removed, as these programs are not available in Solvang. Information related to SoCalGas programs, which are available to Solvang residents, has been revised to include two additional programs provided by the agency. 756
1/16/23, 1:04 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
[#20221221224314] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Wed 12/21/2022 2:44 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Xenia Bradford <[email protected]>;David Packard <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Ticket: [#20221221224314]
Name: Sophia Checa
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:

Comments received via phone call
1) Table H-59 needs to be re-worked for clarity. It took a lot of analyzing the numbers to understand the surplis and percentages. We also have the recommendation to add a column for Extremely Low Income like the Projected Housing Needs table on page H-6. The math on Table H-59 needs to be revisited. I think the 20% buffer amounts are incorrect. Additionally, why are we shooting for higher than the RHNA with buffer? 2) It is not clear where the New Construction Objectives on page H-6 came from. Did the city actually set these goals? The recommendation is to reduce them, if possible.
3) When the Consultants speak to the public and City Council again, I recommend discussing how the analysis for the sites happened and how they disbursed the various units (extremely low, low, etc) across the sites.

Thank you!
Page title: PlanSolvang
757
758
1/16/23, 1:05 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Opposition to the re-zoning of 741 and 739 Alamo Pintado in the City of Solvang CA.

L Woodall <[email protected]>
Tue 1/3/2023 3:28 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: Ben <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. 12/20/2022
Dear City of Solvang and to whom it may concern,
We recently reviewed the Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment [December 2022] document and learned of the possible rezoning of lots 741 Alamo Pintado Road and 739 Alamo Pintado Road, also known as “Site A” in the Housing Needs Assessment Draft. It seems the City is proposing to rezone the two sites to accommodate high density, lower income housing. The two sites are currently zoned 20-R-1 and allow for two dwelling units per acre. The City intends to rezone the parcels to DR-20 and apply the required minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre to meet the high-density designation.

We live at 2005 Kanin Hoj. Kanin Hoj is a small cul-de-sac serving five homes adjacent to the proposed “Site A”. We strongly oppose rezoning the lots adjacent to and near our street. Our neighborhood is not designed to support high-density housing. It is a quiet, single-family residential community desirable for the privacy and serenity provided by the large low-density lots.

Water, traffic, parking, noise, light, pollution and scale of such a development are all of great concern. The proposed zoning would be out of context and scale for the neighborhood. Kanin Hoj would not be able to withstand the additional traffic or parking created from the proposed high-density housing. The increased vehicular traffic on Kanin Hoj and Alamo Pintado could also pose a potential life safety hazard, as there is no access for pedestrians and limited access for first responders.

The proposed high-density housing located in a single-family residential neighborhood will also negatively affect the home values in the immediate vicinity as the homes in this single-family residential community are desirable for the privacy and serenity provided by the large low-density lots.

In addition, this will negatively impact the local wildlife, namely the deer families that live and reproduce here. We greatly appreciate your concern and thoughtfulness in regards to our effort to preserve the beauty of this single-family residential community.

Sincerely,
Ben and Lindsay Woodall
759
1/16/23, 1:06 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Housing Element
Karry Lee <[email protected]>
Sun 12/25/2022 11:53 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
1) Water and sewer hook ups for more housing? How can we accommodate more water use in a deepening draught? How can we hook up more units to a defunct sewer system? Solvang should have a moratorium on building and hook ups! 2) TRAFFIC How can Solvang increase housing without creating an additional roadway bypass? Extending Fjord to 246 looks like the only viable option!
3) INFILL
760
1/16/23, 1:06 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Draft Housing Element comments
Kief Adler <[email protected]>
Sat 12/31/2022 1:59 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

I've reviewed the draft housing element documents and found them to be thorough and well put together. That said, I do have the following comments:

1. While the state mandates many things, it does not mean that we, as citizens of Solvang, need to roll over and accept them.  There are ways of fighting State laws in the courts and we can also reach out to our local representatives for help.  I am not sure that a "one size fits all" approach by the State fits a small town like ours.

2. Yes there is an obvious need for housing, especially lower income housing.  Solvang is a tourist town.  It is our main source of revenue and jobs and should be respected for that.  However, as we keep building high end hotels and restaurants instead of affordable housing, we are pushing our service workers further away from our City.  For lower income employees, the cost of commuting can negate the benefits of working in our hotels, shops and restaurants further exacerbating our employee shortage.

3. I would like to see a common sense approach regarding housing in the City, with an emphasis on lower income needs.  Further I would push back against the State and inquire where the water for these projects is supposed to come from.  Finally, I would not allow any large projects to move forward, with an exemption for those close to permiting, until we solve our water issues.

Kief Adler
Solvang resident
761
1/16/23, 1:06 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Allow sender | Block sender
Comments on Public Review Draft 12/2022 of Housing Element Stephen Martin <[email protected]>
Thu 1/5/2023 11:41 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
I strongly urge you to exclude the steep 4.48 ac parcel from Site C (formerly Site 3) in the proposed Housing
Element (HE).

Solvang needs to encourage construction of affordable,
not higher income, housing. Market conditions and
existing zoning have historically been sufficient to easily meet the needs for higher income housing.

While the proposed HE does encourage affordable
housing, it also unnecessarily proposes high density
zoning in areas where high development costs will likely exclude affordable housing. History tells us that this will use up land in order to develop unneeded moderate and
higher income houses. According to the 2015 to 2023 HE
5th cycle planning period report at page H-23, table H-1, Solvang exceeded State Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) requirements for additional moderate
and above moderate housing by 220% and 153%
respectively.

The proposed HE for the 2023 to 2031 6th cycle period
projects that we will again exceed moderate and above
moderate requirements, by 233% and 304% respectively.

So we see that Solvang is overstimulating higher income housing. This overstimulation simply creates unneeded
units which attract additional affluent residents who in turn will consume scarce water resources, create more
traffic congestion, and add to the costs of City services.

This may be a windfall for developers but it is not good for Solvang.

SITE C of the draft HE is a prime example of how the
proposed plan will overstimulate higher income housing.

Site C consists of a 1 acre fairly flat parcel and a 4.48 acre steeply sloped parcel. Present zoning allows for 2 units and 9 units respectively on these parcels. The draft HE calls for rezoning the entire site for high density to allow for a projected 20 affordable housing units and 20
moderate and 36 above moderate income units. However
such zoning changes ALLOWING AT LEAST 20 units per
acre could lead to AT LEAST 110 UNITS WITH ONLY 20
BEING AFFORDABLE.

Given the steep slopes, and poor soil quality,
drainage/flooding, access/traffic and other issues,
762
1/16/23, 1:06 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/2 development costs will likely dictate that the additional affordable units will be built on the 1 acre flatter parcel and the 56 - 90 higher income units will be built on the steep 4.48 ac. parcel. Rezoning to allow these additional units of higher income housing on this steep parcel will do nothing to help our AFFORDABLE housing needs and
is NOT EVEN NEEDED to meet moderate and above
moderate income housing goals. As the HE plan itself
acknowledges in table H-59, if we do the math, even
without these 20 moderate and 36 above moderate units,
Solvang will still EXCEED the RHNA State requirements,
including a 20% buffer, by 159% for moderate units (63- 20 ÷27) and by 213% for above moderate units.(228-
36÷90)
Why would we facilitate unrequired and unneeded higher
income housing?
Not only are these proposed extra higher income units
not needed, they will result in unnecessary and
permanent harm to Solvang's Plan to preserve the
character of its neighborhoods and its designated scenic vistas, and cause unnecessary increased traffic congestion at its eastern gateway. It will also require additional and costly public infrastructure and services to deal with flood and traffic control. And, very importantly, it will
unnecessarily burden already scarce water resources.

I therefore again urge you to correct this serious planning error by excluding the 4.48 acre parcel from SITE C so that it will NOT UNNECESSARILY BE REZONED FOR HIGH
DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

Stephen C. Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang CA 93463
[email protected]
763
1/16/23, 1:07 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Jane McGinty <[email protected]>
Sat 1/7/2023 4:08 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mayor Infanti and Council Members:

We moved to this lovely town of Solvang in 2000 and after living and golfing on the Alisal Ranch for six years, we moved to a home in Santa Ynez on Monteciello. Solvang drew us back, however, and by 2011 we bought our home in the beautiful community of Mission Oaks. We live at the top of historic Aqueduct Way where we have a lovely view and although we pay a premium price for it, we are close to the hospital, doctors, markets, banks etc. We feel safe here. It is what we worked a lifetime for.

We are very concerned about the rezoning proposal to allow more unnecessary housing and create even more congestion. The area already has a dangerous four way stop at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road and the expansion of the New Frontiers Market has increased traffic in the area tremendously. A more congested entrance to Solvang cannot be what you had in mind. Another consideration is that any new development will also increase the depletion of our scarce water resources. Already Mission Oaks has adapted to this scarcity with very strict rules about our use of the water here. I would hope that the city would tighten its belt as well and not add more unnecessary housing.

Sincerely yours,
Jane McGinty
646 Aqueduct Way Solvang CA 93463
764
1/17/23, 9:47 AM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAQAO%2F0hTpoOiNAhA92A6VsnE… 1/2 Comment Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Karen <[email protected]>
Mon 1/9/2023 11:59 AM
To: Dave Fleishman <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Public City Council Group <[email protected]>
Cc: Dan Martin <[email protected]>;Steve Martin <[email protected]> This sender is trusted.

Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti, Councilmembers, City of Solvang:

Before I address the more technical issues regarding the proposed re-zoning and development of site C below, I want to make it clear that this site falls within the designated view corridor of our master plan, and it is an archeologically sensitive area.

As such, I have reached out to the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, and have shared photos of what I believe to be part of the original Mission Aqueduct which is located on Site C.

As I have stated previously in person in front of the Planning Commission, and in front of you all, this Site C requires extensive geological, environmental and archeological study prior to any type of re-zoning or development.

I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Lowcost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary. But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This 765
1/17/23, 9:47 AM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAQAO%2F0hTpoOiNAhA92A6VsnE… 2/2 parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR

DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should NOT be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you in advance for continuing to do more detailed due diligence prior to making any decisions.

Karen M. Waite
Former Councilmember
Solvang, Ca
Resident
766
1/16/23, 1:07 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Albert Mills <[email protected]>
Mon 1/9/2023 8:16 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires.

Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary.

But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels.

Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of highdensity affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48- acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR

DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should 767
1/16/23, 1:07 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/2 not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you.

Albert Mills
621 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
768
1/16/23, 1:08 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Sandy Mills <[email protected]>
Mon 1/9/2023 8:11 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires.

Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary.

But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels.

Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of highdensity affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48- acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR

DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources. 769
1/16/23, 1:08 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/2 Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you.

Sandra Mills
621 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
770
1/16/23, 1:08 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Allow sender | Block sender
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sun 1/8/2023 6:15 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
My husband and I have been residents of Solvang for 47 years and for the past 9 years have resided in Mission Oaks HOA above the land along Alamo Pintado that the Richman family owns. We have seen many changes in our beautiful valley during that time, some good and some not so good.

Over the years we have seen some incredible increases in vehicular traffic throughout the Valley but most significantly two locations require some discussion. The intersections of State Route 246 (SR 246) and Alamo Pintado and another at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive. A few short years ago the increased traffic at Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado got so heavy that a 4-way stop was created. In recent years with the completion of the Mercantile Shopping Center and 16 new residences on Old Mission Drive, traffic in these two locations has mushroomed. With three separate entrances and exits for the shopping center, traffic is constantly entering or leaving which causes confusion for drivers and often requires driving in the opposing lane of traffic on Old Mission Drive. Large delivery trucks and an assortment of cars and trucks owned by employees of the various businesses line Old Mission Drive and occasionally block the entrance to Mission Oaks, our driveway.

If the property along Alamo Pintado owned by the Richman family is rezoned to accommodate more commercial businesses and innumerable low-cost housing, it can and will create significant safety concerns.

I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary. But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%) Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing.

The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Respectfully Submitted,
SuziMatthies
682 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
Email: [email protected]
Home Phone: 805-688-8515
771
1/16/23, 1:08 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Paul Matthies <[email protected]>
Sun 1/8/2023 3:26 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
My wife and I have been residents of Solvang for 47 years and for the past 9 years have resided in Mission Oaks HOA above the land along Alamo Pintado that the Richman family owns. We have seen many changes in our beautiful valley during that time, some good and some not so good.

Over the years we have seen some incredible increases in vehicular traffic throughout the Valley but most significantly two locations require some discussion. The intersections of State Route 246 (SR 246) and Alamo Pintado and another at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive. A few short years ago the increased traffic at Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado got so heavy that a 4-way stop was created. In recent years with the completion of the Mercantile Shopping Center and 16 new residences on Old Mission Drive, traffic in these two locations has mushroomed. With three separate entrances and exits for the shopping center, traffic is constantly entering or leaving which causes confusion for drivers and often requires driving in the opposing lane of traffic on Old Mission Drive.

Large delivery trucks and an assortment of cars and trucks owned by employees of the various businesses line Old Mission Drive and occasionally block the entrance to Mission Oaks, our driveway.

If this property is rezoned to accommodate more commercial businesses and innumerable low-cost housing, it can and will create significant safety concerns.

I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more expensive units than is necessary. But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for the construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1-acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher-income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER-INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety, and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang-designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase the depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher-income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage the first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Matthies
682 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
Email: [email protected]
Home Phone: 805-688-8515
772
Hans and Wendy Gregersen
638 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, CA 93463
Telephone:1-805-693-1148; Mobile: 1-805-245-0771
January 8, 2023
Dear Mayor Infanti, Mayor pro tem Orona, Council Members Brown and Orona, We are writing to address continued concerns with the December 15, 2022, Public Review Draft of the Housing Element. We continue to feel strongly that Solvang must have greater numbers of affordable housing if it is to meet the needs of its residents and continue to flourish as an exemplary city. However, that can only be accomplished with a sound plan in which we all have confidence.

We have written and testified in the past on many aspects of the Housing Element, especially as it pertains to Site ‘C’. Thanks to City Staff the current draft has some important modifications. However, further critical changes must be made to avoid drastic long-term problems of traffic congestion, safety, insufficient water resources, all of which the current draft will create. The new draft does however contain the elements to solve some of those issues on Site ‘C.’
Alas, Site ‘C’ is still comprised of two very different parcels, one 1-acre and the other 4.8 acres. The 20 affordable units the site is now projected to produce will presumably be built on the flatter parcel that the report describes as “significantly less costly to develop.” The far steeper 4.8-acre hillside parcel will be difficult, if not impossible, to develop with Very Low or Low affordable housing. This is particularly true due to its steep slopes, propensity for erosion, expansive soil, water runoff, and need for access.

The 56 far less affordable Moderate and Above Moderate units will certainly be sited on the hillside parcel, destroying a designated Scenic Vista, unearthing sensitive historical resources, causing traffic congestion, and using precious water. Although the Housing Element does incorporate the ability to build Moderate and Above Moderate units, Table H-59 shows that these less affordable units are clearly not needed. The draft proposal envisions producing 233% (M) and 304% (AM) of what is needed.

Given the impacts of developing the larger 4.8-acre parcel of Site ‘C’ it seems irresponsible for the city to consider going forward with the draft proposal to rezone it to allow 20 units per acre. Especially prior to any development plan that is specific as to what can and will be built there. It is simply a ‘free pass’ with no protections for homeowners on adjoining lands, nor safeguards against any of the significant negative impacts to the community noted above.

There is however, one important remedy for solving Site ‘C’ issues in the Housing Element Plan. It is simply to NOT include the larger parcel in Site ‘C’. Keeping the parcels independent while changing the designation on the smaller flat site only, will provide what is needed to develop real affordable housing now, and allow the city to require a future developer to prove in advance of a zoning change, that in fact the larger site can be developed in a manner that won’t create long term unresolvable problems as has been noted throughout these deliberations.

This is a difficult task that has no easy answers. The challenge for the city is to meet a specific level of affordable housing for residents of Solvang over the next eight years. It is not a ‘hope to be able’ - it is a mandate that must be met. Penalties for failing to live up to any plan to which Solvang agrees will at some point, fall on the shoulders of all residents and businesses either directly or indirectly.

Solvang is an amazingly great city. We are aware of the time, effort and thinking that has gone into the report so far. Making changes that will ensure we’ve planned for the best possible outcome and against future ‘unintended consequences’ continues to be a worthy endeavor to seek on behalf of all Solvang residents.

Please keep up the good work and best intentions.

Thank you,
Hans and Wendy Gregersen
Cc: SCheca, City Clerk
773
1/16/23, 1:09 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/3 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Jeff Nelson <[email protected]>
Sat 1/7/2023 7:17 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary.  But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
774
1/16/23, 1:09 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/3 Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing.  The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104.  But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing.  The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique 775
1/16/23, 1:09 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 3/3 neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you.

Jeff Nelson
634 Aqueduct Way,
Solvang, Ca.  93463
776
1/16/23, 1:10 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/3 Allow sender | Block sender
Fwd: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Susan Nelson <[email protected]>
Sat 1/7/2023 4:52 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary.  But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an 777
1/16/23, 1:10 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/3 error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing.  The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104.  But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing.  The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.
778
1/16/23, 1:10 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 3/3 Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you.

Susan Nelson
634 Aqueduct Way,
Solvang, Ca.  93463
779
1/16/23, 1:10 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive
john lee <[email protected]>
Sat 1/7/2023 4:50 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Valued Public Servants,
Our names are John and Dana Lee, we are married and have lived on the cul de sac at the end of Old Mission Drive for 3 years. Old Mission at Alamo Pintado is our only access to Nielsen’s, Merkantile, Solvang,Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, Los Olivos, and all other points in every compass direction. To say that traffic in this area is already congested is an understatement. Waited in a line of traffic coming to Alamo Pintado from Santa Barbara lately? Just wait for the new line coming to that intersection form town if the new residents work to the  north!! We can manage it now, but additional homes/traffic/residents will turn it into a nightmare. Imagine all this new chaos 5 houses down from you and blocking your only access to and from YOUR house and businesses that you have available.

The city is congested enough. Please don’t ruin it further.

The greed of developers and the sparkle of new tax revenue are formidable forces. What’s next? 246 thru town with a 4 lane highway running above it? Soon it’s BYE BYE SOLVANG! Please find other land to develop with less impact on the people who love things the way they are. If you MUST!! get bigger, find some land near a quiet intersection where neighbors won’t notice or care! There is a lot of land elsewhere for the State to enforce it’s unconscionable demand for new unit construction. It is my opinion that Solvang’s plan grows us to become something we are not. Slow down…..nobody says we have to get big!
(Please respond with dates and times of the next meetings on this plan.) Very respectfully,
Happy Solvang residents,
John and Dana Lee
780
781
1/16/23, 1:11 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on Housing Element
Chantee Sea Sea <[email protected]>
Thu 1/12/2023 12:56 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

January 12th, 2022
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Dear Mayor Infanti and Council members,
Rezoning to allow additional disproportionate higher-income housing at a crowded gateway is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique Solvang neighborhood.

Permitting dense buildings on a steep lot causes problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic and pedestrian safety, and loss of habitat to the wildlife that share this unique open space essential to the health and well-being of our community. Please be respectful of this Historic Mission Aqueduct, preserve it, and acknowledge the climate change in California; despite the recent rain, we are still in a drought, water is scarce, and fire season has become almost year-round.

Please reconsider rezoning the steep 4.48-acre parcel to DR-20 and remove it from Site C instead. The steep 4.48-acre lot is not appropriate for constructing high-density affordable housing.

The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C could all be built on the more level 1-acre parcel described as "significantly less costly to develop" on pages H-104 of the Housing Needs Assessment.

The Housing Element is proposing 56 nonessential Higher Income units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site unsuitable for affordable housing. The Housing Element must focus on supplying more affordable dwellings and produce no more expensive units than necessary.” Rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) could allow for at least 80 additional higher-income units above the ten permitted under the current zoning.

Table H-59 shows that rezoning to allow higher-income units on Site C is unnecessary to meet Solvang’s affordable housing needs.

Sincerely,
Chantal Cloutier
750 Hillside Drive
Solvang, California
782
1/16/23, 1:11 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Comment on Housing Element, Public Review Draft
Patricia Hedrick <[email protected]>
Thu 1/12/2023 1:02 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
To Solvang City Council and Staff,
We can all agree on the need for affordable housing. The question is how much and where it is cost-effective to build the necessary housing.

Site C on Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is the largest undeveloped site in Solvang, but it is undeveloped for good reasons. In fact Site C is actually 2 separate parcels, the more level corner parcel and the steep hillside parcel.  The steep hillside parcel is an unrealistic site for high-density development.

Consider the topography:

Site C as illustrated shows both parcels as a flat rectangular shape. I am familiar with Site C as I walk near it almost daily. The northern parcel illustrated in the Draft Plan is referred to as a ‘U’ shaped contour when it is actually the opposite shape - a STEEP hill on both sides. City staff acknowledge that grading this parcel will be ‘especially difficult’, realistically it will require hill top removal and a total re-shaping to allow for the density desired by the city.

Removal of expansive soil and the importation of non-expansive soil would be expensive and disruptive to residents, businesses and visitors  and all who use Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Rd and Hwy 246. Along with noise, air pollution and serious drainage issues (witness recent flooding) it would be expensive to mitigate.

Many residents, including the city’s own staff, have pointed out the impracticality of trying to build high-density, affordable housing on the steep hillside parcel. Access will be restricted and parking will be problematic as on street parking does not exist.

This steep parcel is the wrong site to achieve 20 affordable units, with  40-60 moderate to above moderate priced homes required to pay for the affordable units, though the city doesn’t need more above moderate priced homes.

The city cannot afford this project, particularly the necessary infrastructure and services it will require to build and maintain.

I urge the city council to visit this site, to be aware of property lines and access limitations. Try to visualize how Site C can be realistically transformed into a densely packed development of 80-100 ‘units’ without destroying the character of a Solvang designated ‘Scenic Vista’ and avoiding adverse impact to adjacent neighborhoods.

This is NOT a cost-effective site.  I urge the city to avert this potential planning disaster and eliminate the steep hillside parcel from Site C.

Sincerely,
Patricia Hedrick
Solvang Resident
783
1/16/23, 1:11 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/2 784
785
786
1/16/23, 1:12 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 John Royce <[email protected]>
Fri 1/13/2023 1:58 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti, Councilmembers, and Housing Element Committee Staff, We are all aware of California’s acute housing crisis. To help tackle this crisis, we understand that Solvang is periodically required by the state of California to update its Housing Element. Kent and I believe we all share responsibility to mitigate this serious issue. To that end, we are not opposed to thoughtfully designed higher density housing as part of our workforce housing solution, and we do not protest having such a development near our own neighborhood.

In Solvang, many of our jobs simply do not accommodate our workforce’s ability to house themselves affordably. As one of the basic tenets of a healthy community, we believe we are obligated to provide reasonable opportunities to develop livable, affordable housing for the employees our city demands and attracts. Since we have extremely limited undeveloped space, it is imperative that we plan for our housing element carefully, thoughtfully, and creatively.

If the majority of our workforce must live and work outside of our city, we exacerbate the crush of traffic and parking issues, because every employee we require relies on personal transportation to get here, and requires a parking space for most of the day, often the same parking spaces provided for tourists and customers who spin our local economic engines. For these reasons, siting high density affordable housing close to local employment centers and amenities makes absolute sense, as it reduces the number of personal vehicle trips each resident must take to work, shop and play in our community.

However, the current proposal for the two parcels labeled as Site C goes far beyond our stated needs. While it does propose 18 Very Low and 2 Low income category units on the smaller, flatter parcel of Site C, it proposes an additional 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units on the larger, steeper, 4.48-acre parcel. These additional units are not necessary to satisfy our RHNA goals. In fact, the city consistently over produces these high income categories. According to Table H-59 on page H-107 of the Housing Needs Assessment, there are already far more than enough credits for Moderate and Above Moderate units due to pending and or approved projects, ADU projections, and vacant sites that do not require rezoning. Thus, it is completely unnecessary to rezone the larger, steeper parcel of Site C. These additional proposed units will most certainly exacerbate traffic congestion and other population pressures, and threaten both a designated local view corridor and the historic Mission Santa Inez aqueduct, while serving no intended purpose from a community planning perspective. We won’t be able to blame this on Sacramento!
If the crux of the argument for developing Site C is the urgent need for more affordable workforce housing, we should exclude the larger, upper parcel in the DR-20 rezoning process, as the lower, 1-acre parcel provides the opportunity to produce the affordable units we require, with close, often pedestrian access to local employment, shopping, and public transit amenities.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments.

Sincerely,
John Royce and Kent Lockart
687 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
John A Royce
[email protected]
CleanYourStoop on IG
562.208.9871 M Texts welcome
Volunteers make our world turn more kindly and gently. Support a volunteer by joining their effort or offering financial assistance. Your soul and the world we share will thank you. #WeNotMe 787
1/16/23, 1:12 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/2 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December, 2022 Kent Lockart <[email protected]>
Fri 1/13/2023 2:44 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mayor Infanti, Mayor pro tem Orona, Council Members Brown and Orona, and Staff, In the “Summary of Capacity to Meet the RHNA”, page H-107, the “Site Inventory Table”, page H-58 is still confusing and continues to have an error in the calculation of the “% of RHNA Planned for Moderate”. This is the “Summary”.

Given that some people only read the “Summary”, that error alone would cause anyone reviewing the plan to question if there are more errors in the rest of the plan.

The Table H-58, “Summary of Capacity Table”, (see below) shows us that we do not need to rezone for Moderate and Above Moderate. Solvang will achieve these naturally. Projects, ADU’s, and Vacant Sites already fulfill these two categories.

In the proposed rezoning that is included in this plan, Solvang is committing to the State more units than what they have asked for. I believe this is a mistake. It’s a waste. It gives the State too much control and triggers multiple regulations.

In fact, as you know, we must report to the State, DR-20 projects that are listed for affordable housing but not developed at the densities shown in our Housing Element.

Solvang has confined boarders, limited resources, and is almost built out. Our Housing Element for the next eight years needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid committing all our vacant parcels to producing more expensive units than is necessary.

One option to reduce the unnecessary over commitment of this plan is to separate the two parcels of Site C. The steep 4.48-acre parcel from Site C should be removed and not be rezoned DR-20 as part of this Housing Element submission. The 1-acre lower parcel is sufficient to produce the 20 Very Low and Low we need to meet our RHNA requirements.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Housing Element Draft.

Kent Lockart
687 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
788
1/16/23, 1:12 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 2/2 789
January 10, 2023
City of Solvang
Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Sent via email [email protected]
Subject: Comment Submittal, City of Solvang Housing Element Thank you for your excellent work in creating a clear vision for a cohesive, resilient, and vibrant community. The City’s Housing Element represents an important opportunity to continue efforts to use land use regulations as an effective response to climate change.

Please include these comments as a part of your public outreach:

1. To diversify housing availability, discourage auto trips, encourage walking and social interaction, allow multi-use and residential development within all land-use areas. This will allow hospitality, retail staff, school faculty, and lower-wage workers to live and work in the same location reducing auto trips and climate-changing pollution.

2. Develop robust design criteria for any higher-density development to conform to the City of Solvang’s ‘Approved Guiding Principles’.

3. Encourage employers to provide staff housing as a part of their employment package.

4. Vacant Site C’s steep, hill area will require mass grading, habitat loss, and historic resource destruction which cannot be mitigated.
a. Site C’s relatively level area likely represents a developable area and must include rigorous design standards to comply with the City’s Guiding Principles. b. If not already participating, it is imperative a representation from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians be involved in site C’s planning and design.

5. Continue efforts to densify development, create walkable, narrower streets, and encourage public transportation.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and can be reached at my office at 805 693 4592.

Sincerely,
Denise Johns ASLA, Landscape Architect CA 4916
611 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, California 93463
790
1/16/23, 1:13 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 FW: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Fri 1/13/2023 10:11 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Annamarie Porter, CMC
City Clerk
City of Solvang
Phone: (805) 688-5575 x206
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Story <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 9:28 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Solvang Draft Housing Element
City Officials,
I think that the plan to build low cost housing next to Mission Oaks was poorly conceived and will be disastrous on many levels.

There are people, far more knowledgeable than I, who will talk about elevation, soil, and runoff.

Where are you going to park another 200 cars?
The traffic is already congested and dangerous.  My car has nearly been hit a couple of times, and pedestrians, literally have to dodge cars as the cross the road.

Drivers are looking at the traffic light and drive right through the stop sign You have three lanes of traffic on Alamo Pintado that arrive at the stop sign at different times.

Drivers make a U turn and then pull into the parking lot when the drivers behind them think that they are going to turn at the traffic light.

A woman was killed a couple of years ago.  She was crossing 246 in a crosswalk with the light in her favor.  A careless or frustrated driver turning left from Alamo Pintado didn’t see her.  She was hit and killed.

You take your life in your hands when trying to cross Old Mission Oaks to enter the parking lot of New Frontiers.  You have delivery trucks parked in the middle of the street and it’s on a corner making it impossible to see oncoming traffic.  I have also seen a large RV, too big for the parking lot, parked in the red zone as they shop.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider the idea of low cost housing at this location.

Sincerely,
Diana Story
640 Hillside Drive
791
TO: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the Very-Low and Low-cost units the State requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014- 2022) the City easily provided 220% of the Moderate and 153% of the Above Moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary. But the Draft Housing Element, as currently written, NEEDLESSLY ENCOURAGES EVEN MORE HIGHER INCOME UNITS.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for Moderate and 304% for Above Moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%)
Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded HIGHER INCOME units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

REZONING TO ALLOW THESE HIGHER INCOME UNITS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR

DEVELOPERS BUT WOULD NOT HELP MEET SOLVANG'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS.
792
The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for Moderate and Above Moderate housing. Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you,
Robert Snyder
Valerie Morgan
728 Hillside Drive
Solvang, 93463
793
Lots on Alamo Pintado LLC
Joshua J. Richman, Manager
1111 Broadway, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94607
January 13, 2023
Submitted via www.plansolvang.com and by email to [email protected] City of Solvang
Planning Division
Attn: Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
411 Second Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Re: Comments on Draft Housing Element
Dear Ms. Checa:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Solvang’s draft Housing Element which was circulated on December 15, 2022.

As a Solvang native, I appreciate the thorough approach the City has taken over the last year or more to address state Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) mandates and plan for future housing. This is clearly a complex endeavor that involves many stakeholders and brings local and regional planning issues to the fore.

The 5.48 acres of vacant land that my family owns at the northwest corner of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive have been subject to considerable comment over several public hearings.

The two legal parcels comprise the largest contiguous residentially zoned vacant parcels in the City’s limits and are ideally suited for housing. As I have previously explained to staff and in public hearings, I am committed to building housing on this site in a way that preserves and even enhances the character of Solvang. Housing on this infill site avoids urban sprawl (all neighboring parcels are developed or entitled for development) and helps regional traffic by placing new housing at the center of the Santa Ynez Valley and near existing amenities and services.

Some commenters have described development on this land as creating “unnecessary units.” In addition to being factually inaccurate, those comments dismiss the needs of all those people who commute to the area every day and make valuable economic, social, and cultural contributions to the City and greater region. Calling new housing “unnecessary” also dismisses the larger housing crisis in California. We hear about it all the time and see it in all parts of the state that there is not enough housing to meet demand. The RHNA quantifies that demand at the local level and based on that assessment, Solvang needs nearly 200 additional housing units.

Other commenters have argued that these parcels are not feasible for development. Given the size of the parcels and the number of units that staff has identified as being realistically possible for the site, I believe that with appropriate incentives from the City, there is an economically feasible path to getting some affordable units constructed on the parcels. For example, the Housing Element should consider fee waivers, density bonuses, grants, and greater streamlining of project approvals beyond those offered in recent housing statutes. 794
As the City revises its Housing Element, and prior to submission to HCD, please consider including the following clarifications and/or corrections:

1. In Program HE-I, the Housing Element states that the City is going to identify funding opportunities available to local developers. How will the City go about identifying these funding opportunities and how will it notify interested parties? Would the City create a mailing list for interested property owners to ensure these opportunities are effectively communicated?

2. In Program HE-J and Table H-54, the DR-20 zone is described as having a 20 unit per acre minimum density. In other parts of the draft Housing Element, it looks like the 20 units per acre is a maximum. Since there is a recommendation that our parcels be rezoned to DR-20, please clarify whether the DR-20 zone would impose a minimum or a maximum density. Please note that we are open to density beyond 20 units per acre, which would be reasonable for a city like Solvang and not inconsistent with the region. 1 3. Program HE-N describes affordable housing incentives, but I believe the City could do more to encourage affordable housing. Many of the units identified in the needs assessment are affordable units, but the economics of those units may be difficult to finance. Please consider adding additional regulatory incentives to encourage that enough affordable housing can be developed to meet the identified need. For example, the City should consider reductions in parking requirements for projects that include affordable units, allow for increases in building height, clustering, and density bonuses.

4. Section G of Program HE-N describes a ministerial process for residential projects in commercial zones. Would that ministerial process also apply to projects in the DR-20 zone? It is unclear whether multi-family projects require both a Land Use Permit and Development Plan, or just one but not the other. Please provide this clarification.

5. Section E of Program HE-N describes the use of state and federal funding to support affordable projects. Does the City have affordable housing funds available to developers or a referral program for affordable housing developers? If so, these resources should be identified in Program HE-N along with a description of how information about these resources will be publicized. Will the City commit to applying for grant funding through the department of Housing and Urban Development?

6. Table H-43 states in a footnote that the “Land Use Permit” fee applies to new single-family dwellings and second units. However, it is unclear whether this means that a Land Use Permit is all that is needed for those types of projects. Page 104 states, by contrast, that "The City uses various development permits to ensure quality housing while minimizing the costs associated with lengthy reviews. The City's permit process is codified in Title 11 of the Solvang Municipal Code and provides for three (3) levels of review: (1) conceptual, (2) ministerial, and (3) discretionary. All projects are to receive a Land Use Permit regardless of their level of review." (Emphasis added.) Does this mean that multi-family housing projects will also be subject to a Land Use Permit? This seems like a constraint 1 Some surrounding jurisdictions allow for residential zoning at a density higher than 20 units/acre:
- County of Santa Barbara (30 units/acre. SBCC 35.23.060.) - City of Santa Maria (22 units/acre. SMMC 12-8.08.)
- City of Lompoc (22 units/acre. LMC 17.208.040.)
- City of Buellton (16 units/acre. BMC 19.02.120.)
795
on these types of projects. I would encourage the City to remove barriers to housing development and avoid an onerous and costly approval process.

7. The Housing Element explains that "PRD [Planned Residential Development] projects are subject to a discretionary development plan." (Page 104). Pages 110-111 provide other scenarios in which a Development Plan is required. Like other sections of the Housing Element, the language could benefit from clarity. Page 118 states, "Multifamily projects in the DR zoning district reaching a density of 20 dwelling units per acre are additionally subject to review by the Design Review Committee. All projects in the DR zoning district, including multifamily projects, require a Development Plan to be submitted for review." Please explain whether multi-family approvals are subject to a discretionary Development Plan and, if so, why?

8. Parking. While the Housing Element states that our land does not qualify for the reduced parking standards set forth in AB 2097, the Housing Element should ensure that affordable projects are subject to reduced parking standards. The City currently allows a reduced parking standard for “mixed use” projects with an affordable component. Why not allow for a similar relaxation of parking standards for projects that contain affordable housing? The Housing Element should provide for a reduced parking standard for any multi-family project with affordable units, regardless of whether the project has commercial uses associated with it.

The City should add a new category of reduced parking standards for infill projects.

Throughout the General Plan and the Housing Element, it is noted that infill development is preferred to developing the outskirts of the City. Incentivizing infill development by reducing costly parking requirements would demonstrate the City is committed to providing needed housing.

A final note on parking requirements is that page H-62 states that Programs HE-L and HEV commit the City to reevaluating parking requirements for infill projects, but it is not clear how those programs will do that. Please provide more detail on how infill parking standards will be evaluated and a description of the specific the programs that will ensure compliance with Programs HE-L and HE-V.

9. Table H-38 “illustrates the land uses that require a CUP” but Table H-38 lists development standards and does not mention CUPs. The Housing Element should be clarified to explain the types of projects that require a CUP and specifically clarify whether multi-family projects require a CUP.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element. We remain committed to making meaningful contributions to the City’s housing needs and goals.

Sincerely,
Lots on Alamo Pintado, LLC
By:

Joshua J. Richman, Manager
796
January 13, 2023
Dear Mayor Infanti, Mayor pro tem Orona, Council Members Brown and Orona, Mission Oaks residents have carefully followed Solvang’s update of the Housing Element and participated in the two public workshops held in March and May. The consultant’s first presentation used the vacant property east of Mission Oaks as a sample site that could be rezoned to DR-20 - DR-24 to produce affordable housing. At that workshop and the subsequent one, many members of the public warned the out-of-town consultants that there were serious issues complicating the development of the two parcels, especially the much steeper northern parcel.

See page H-19 of the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for some of those comments (Site C was divided at that point and referred to as #4 and #5.) Potential archeological issues (the historic Mission Aqueduct) were pointed out at that time, but for some reason, that comment is not listed. A reference to sheet flow from the existing drainage on Site C is anachronistically mislabeled as referring to Site 3 (#4 and #5 were subsequently combined to produce Site #3.)
Mission Oaks residents spoke at hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and submitted written comments, pointing out that the steep hillside parcel is totally unsuitable for high density development. Residents pointed out the numerous reasons why it will be very expensive to develop the steep hillside, and that any units produced will not be affordable. These include the steep topography that was illustrated in part by Figure H-7 on page H-93 of the earlier draft, that shows a northsouth section profile of both parcels.

Many speakers at those meetings referred to that profile illustration which depicts how steep the northern parcel is and the difference between the two parcels. This very important illustration should be retained in the HNA in order to understand the difficulty of providing affordable housing on Site C, but it has inexplicably been omitted from the Public Review Draft. So long as the steeper parcel is included in Site C this illustration (a picture is worth a thousand words) is needed to explain to decision makers and the State why the site cannot accommodate more units or be expected to produce more affordable units.

Residents pointed out that an east-west section of the steeper parcel shows topography that is additionally problematic for higher density development because it looks like an upside down “U”, with the eastern edge starting at the much lower elevation of Alamo Pintado Road, a very small flat area at the top, and a steep slope descending to the adjacent incised drainage on the west. The current text regarding the Environmental Constraints of Site C, found on page H-104 of the HNA, does point out that the topography of the steeper parcel “will make grading the parcel especially difficult.” This is definitely true. The textual description however, should refer to the “U shaped contour” as being inverted or upside-down, and describing an east-west section of the steeper parcel.

Residents have also pointed out the problematic nature of the expansive clay soil (Diablo series) found on the steeper parcel. It will require excavation and removal, followed by replacement with non-expansive soil that will need additional compaction. Residents have pointed out that the easily eroded nature of the steep parcel can currently be seen in the deeply incised drainage on the site and how the 200-year-old Mission Aqueduct has been progressively buried by downward-moving soil. 797

Adding the runoff from new impermeable surfaces such as roads, roofs, patios, and driveways to the existing drainage that flows across the site, will necessitate expensive drainage infrastructure and the creation of a retention basin, just as one was required for the adjacent Merkantile site, even though it was redevelopment of an existing shopping center. That retention basin would need to be sited on the lower flatter parcel, thereby displacing housing from the one part of the site most suitable for the development of affordable housing. A retention basin alone however, may not be sufficient to mitigate potential flooding due to high density development of this site. Expensive and disruptive offsite drainage improvements may be required.

It should be noted that in the most recent storm event the Merkantile basin filled and overflowed. This occurred even though the project installed large amounts of expensive permeable paving in order to mitigate flooding impacts caused by the impermeable surfaces of the development. An affordable housing project would not have the budget to install large areas of permeable paving, unlike a profitable commercial shopping center. Any runoff from impermeable surfaces on Site C not collected in a retention basin would add to the potential flooding of an intersection and area that has already shown itself prone to flooding.

Considering how difficult it will be to develop affordable housing on this site, it is not surprising that the Review Draft envisions only 18 Very Low and 2 Low units. This is a dramatic reduction from the naïve projection of 45 Very Low and 45 Low units made by the out-of-town consultants that clearly did not study the site carefully and generally ignored the warnings of Solvang residents. The Review Draft however, now includes 20 Moderate units and 36 Above Moderate units, none of which were previously proposed for this site.

The affordable units would undoubtedly be placed on the lower, flatter parts of the site. According to the text on H-104, “Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” The more desirable, more expensive Moderate and Above Moderate units would obviously be sited at higher elevations and further from the road, than the 20 more affordable Low and Very Low units.

History has shown that Solvang has little difficulty producing Moderate and Above Moderate units. The analysis of the Fifth Housing Cycle shown in Table H-1 on page H-23 of the HNA, shows that Solvang achieved 220% of the Moderate RHNA and 153% of the Above Moderate RHNA in the past housing cycle.

An excess of 36 units and 40 units respectively. A look at the figures for Low and Very Low units however, shows that the surplus of units above the RHNA was much smaller, 5 units in both categories.

A review of Table H-59 Sites Inventory on page H-107 shows that the current Sixth Cycle is projected to produce far more Moderate and Above Moderate units than required, 233% of RHNA for Moderate and 304% of RHNA for Above Moderate. The 233% appears to be an error, the correct figure shows an even greater surplus, 286% of RHNA. The table indicates that the proposed rezones will result in almost three times as many Moderate and Above Moderate units as the city needs to fulfill the RHNA requirements.

There is an additional error in this table, the total RHNA with required buffer is 215 units, not 230. A buffer is not required for Above Moderate units.

It is clear that the 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units that are projected for Site C that would undoubtedly be built on the steeper more expensive to develop parcel, are not needed. Mission Oaks residents have repeatedly pointed out the many ways high density development of the entire site is inappropriate and will impact the community.

Traffic has repeatedly been identified as a primary concern for Solvang residents and the development of 76 – 110 units (a developer would not be limited to the 76 units projected) would undoubtedly contribute to traffic and congestion in an area already subject to congestion. Long-term water supplies remain a very serious concern for Solvang despite the recent rains. Large scale development of Site C would certainly add to the city’s long-term water consumption.
798

Despite the recent drought, erosion and flooding from development will continue to be an important issue and one that may be an increasing cause for concern, due to climate change. Residents have also pointed out the need to protect the historic Mission Aqueduct which runs over the steeper hillside parcel and once transported water from Alamo Pintado Creek to Mission Santa Ines.

Mission Oaks has pointed out that the Community Design Element of the Solvang General Plan designates the view over Site C as a Scenic Vista. A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado on the steeper parcel would have very serious visual impacts for the entire community. Policy 7.e of the Community Design Element recognizes the need to “minimize adverse visual impacts” of “...development on sites with high visibility, such as hillsides or in the highway corridors.” This site is both on a highly visible hillside and in a highway corridor. Obviously the most direct way to minimize these impacts is to minimize the development on this site.

Considering the many ways the unnecessary development of the unneeded 56 units of Moderate and Above Moderate units would impact our community it is foolhardy for the city to pursue development of those units in the guise of creating affordable housing. The 20 affordable units Site C is projected to create could and would most likely be built on the lower flatter parcel that is “significantly less costly to develop” and much easier to access. The much steeper problematic parcel should be removed from Site C along with the 56 unneeded units.

If it is claimed that the 56 unneeded units are needed in order to create 20 needed affordable units on Site C, the entire site should be dropped from consideration. None of the other sites create almost 3 times as many unneeded units to create the needed affordable units or generate as many serious impacts to the community.

Mission Oaks residents are deeply invested in the health and welfare of Solvang. We understand that despite how much we love our community, change will undoubtedly occur. But we expect our elected officials to make carefully considered thoroughly researched decisions that avoid unnecessary collateral damage to the future of our neighborhood and the entire community.

Thank you for your service to our community,
Dan Martin
President, Mission Oaks Owners Association
cc: Ms Sophia Checa
CityClerk, City of Solvang
799
Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The current draft of the Housing Element is considerably more realistic and appropriate for Solvang than the generic draft prepared by the out-of-town consultants that reflected a 30,000 ft. high perspective. Many aspects of the document have been revised including the projected development of affordable units on the four different sites (now labeled A, B, C, D) found in the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA.) Nevertheless, the document continues to incorporate errors, omits important information, and perpetuates inappropriate development proposed in the previous draft.

There are numerous revisions to the policy language and implementation programs that warrant careful review and comment but the public and decision makers have not had adequate time to for careful and complete analysis. The update is being rushed to meet deadlines for state approval and environmental review. With the limited time available these comments will focus on certain specific issues. It is impossible for me to cover the many flaws in the Draft Housing Element that remain.

The housing projections for Site C (formerly labeled Site #3, previously Sites #4 and #5) have been revised to acknowledge that this very challenging site cannot be expected to produce more than 20 affordable units, 18 Very Low and 2 Low. The steeper hillside parcel will be far too expensive to produce affordable units and is simply not appropriate for high density development. Nevertheless, 56 unneeded units are projected for this site, 36 Above Moderate and 20 Moderate, resulting in a projected total of 76 units for the site.

The steeper parcel and its unneeded units should be omitted from Site C. Only the flatter parcel is needed for the City to produce the necessary number of Very Low and Low income units. The text states, “Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” The much more expensive 56 units that would undoubtedly be sited on the steeper parcel, are simply not necessary, since the City will have more than enough Moderate and Above Moderate units to meet the State requirements (see Table H-59, pg. H-107 of the HNA). Note: There are errors in this table, some previously pointed out. The 230 Total RHNA with buffer should be 215. The 233% percentage of RHNA of Moderate units is actually 286%, showing an even greater surplus.
800
Given Solvang’s constrained and limited circulation infrastructure, water supply, vacant land, city services and revenues, the City should not attempt to produce any unneeded housing units. This is particularly true for identified affordable housing sites and parcels zoned DR-20 that are weaponized by state laws that bypass the City’s jurisdiction over such sites. The City’s experience with the Lumberyard site that was zoned to allow 42 units under the DR-20 zoning and the developer’s use of SB 330 to require very limited review should cause decision makers to think twice before rezoning a site to potentially allow 110 + units, or for that matter, the 76 units theoretically projected here.

Decision makers should also be aware that the City will be required to “report all requests to develop Housing Opportunity sites with capacity for lower income housing at densities lower than projected in the Housing Element.” - Government Code 65583(h)(6) cited on page H-54 of the HNA. This suggests Solvang should rezone for the bare minimum of units required, rather than overpromise a large number of units. It also emphasizes the need to take issues that constrain realistic affordable development very seriously.

The surplus of unnecessary Moderate and Above Moderate units reflects a documented historical pattern (See Table H-1, page H-23 of the HNA, Fifth Cycle Housing Element Progress) that the City should learn from and avoid repeating.

There is no need to produce approximately three times as many Moderate and Above Moderate units as required as shown by Table H-59.

Developing the entire site with 76 – 110 units would require extensive grading increasing the potential for soil erosion dramatically. The current text for Site C acknowledges that difficulty but omits the excellent illustration that was included in the last version of the HNA. Figure H-7 Elevation Profile of Site 3 graphically depicted a north-south section of the site that showed the difference between the two parcels and the steepness of the northern hillside parcel. The text now reads, “The hill’s western, eastern and southern slopes are all located within the northern parcel ...... that will make grading the parcel especially difficult.” This is true but the reference to a “U shaped contour” is confusing because it is the east-west section that is shaped like an upside-down “U.”
The steeper parcel should not be included in Site C, but if it is, Figure H-7 needs to be retained in order to show why the site cannot accommodate more affordable units. The State and future decision makers need to understand how the dramatic topography impacts Site C’s suitability for high-density development and affordability.
801
The soils found on the steeper parcel are problematic for construction with low permeability and rapid runoff. Diablo soil is a notoriously expansive silty clay.

Creating development pads and foundations will require excavating the existing soil and importing and compacting non-expansive soil. It will entail immense expense and community-wide impacts to construct the access roads and build the necessary retaining walls, erosion control devices and drainage structures.

An existing drainage runs over both parcels but most of it is confined to the steeper parcel. In the most recent storm event sheet flow from this deeply incised drainage deposited debris on Alamo Pintado Road and to a lesser degree, Old Mission Drive. Because of the existing drainage flow, the steep slopes, permeability problems and soil erosion issues, development of 76 – 110 units with their impermeable surfaces (roofs, roads, driveways, decks, patios, etc.) will certainly require a retention basin. The basin would undoubtedly be located on the lower parcel, thereby decreasing the room for residences on the more easily developable part of the site, must suitable for providing affordable housing.

Even with the inclusion of that basin, under certain conditions a “river” of water will still be flowing down Alamo Pintado Road across Highway 246, an area heavily impacted in the most recent storm event. This may necessitate expensive and disruptive offsite drainage improvements in order to mitigate potential flooding impacts. The recent storm suggests Solvang should take drainage and flooding concerns very seriously.

The unnecessary high density development of the steeper parcel will seriously impact a Scenic Vista designated in the Community Design Element. Any dense development built well above Alamo Pintado Road on the hillside would have very serious visual impacts for the entire community. DR-20 would allow almost ten times the number of units allowed by the current zoning. Grading and development would also impact or destroy the section of the historic Mission Aqueduct that crosses the steeper parcel on its way from Alamo Pintado Creek to Mission Santa Ines.

These location specific impacts are in addition to the community wide impacts of unnecessary development - traffic, long-term water consumption, demand for services, noise, air quality, etc. caused by high density development of the steeper parcel.
802
Apart from the 56 unaffordable and unneeded units allocated to Site C, the allocations to the limited number of sites reflect the smaller number of affordable units Solvang actually needs to meet the RHNA goals. Unlike the steep parcel on Site C, the other sites are much flatter and easier to develop. The current draft shows extensive analysis and refinement of what was produced during the Fifth Cycle and what credits toward meeting the Sixth Cycle goals, can be expected.

Figure H-52 on page H-90 of the HNA however, does not match what is found in Figure H-49 and H-59 in the Pending or Approved Above Moderate category. If the other tables are correct the 46 units shown should be 51.

The City should continue to refine the draft Housing Element and particularly the proposal for Site C. Solvang should only consider the smaller lower parcel for meeting the affordable housing needs of the Housing Element. Development of the larger steeper parcel will be so expensive the resulting units will not be affordable. Solvang needs homes that fall into the Very Low and Low affordability categories, not unneeded expensive market rate homes with their impacts to the community.

Thank you for your consideration and efforts,
Lansing Duncan
803
1/16/23, 1:15 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Solvang Draft Housing Element
Dan Martin <[email protected]>
Fri 1/13/2023 1:29 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Public City Council Group <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
My name is Dan Martin.  I am a lifelong resident of the Santa Ynez Valley and a longtime resident of Solvang.  I am also the President of the Mission Oaks Homeowners Association.

Mission Oaks has provided you with a very detailed letter regarding the proposed rezoning of Site C, which was previously referred to as Site 3, which lies between Alamo Pintado Road and Mission Oaks.  We believe this site should not be rezoned for the high density (DR-20) that the currently written Draft Housing Element encourages.

Because of the steep hillside make up of the 4.8 acre parcel of this site, it would not be possible to produce Lowcost and Very-Low-cost units. If there was development on this 4.8 acre portion, the costs involved would only produce higher income units, which the city does not need at this time.

The city does need affordable housing, but the only portion of this site that would possibly work would be the 1 acre flatter part of the property that could possibly accommodate the building of 20 affordable units.  As it is, adding 20 affordable units to this site will increase traffic and congestion, and any more than this number of units to this site would become a safety issue for both locals and tourists.

I would encourage the City to pursue rezoning other areas within the city limits, perhaps allowing the rezoning of commercial properties to include Low and Very Low-cost units as part the buildings and properties.

Thank you for your consideration of matters discussed in the letter sent to you by Mission Oaks and thank you for your service to our community.

Dan Martin
708 Hillside Drive
Solvang
[email protected]
804
January 13, 2023
Members of the Solvang City Council
C/O City Hall, City Clerk's Office
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
RE: Housing Element Draft of 12/15/2022
Dear Solvang City Council Members,
My name is Craig Kent and I have been a property owner and resident of Solvang since 1979 (43 years). I am also a former Solvang City council candidate and have been actively engaged in various County and City planning activities for a number of local developments as an interested homeowner and resident (e.g. original General Plan creation as well as previous updates, Mission Oaks, Valley Plaza/Old Mission Marketplace, Old Mill housing and commercial building development, Nielsen’s Center expansion/remodel, Cottages on Old Mission, etc.) which has given me a good understanding of the processes and studies that have been used and performed over these many decades.

I am aware of the need for the City to address the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandate and the challenges that presents. I am also aware of the need for the city to expeditiously work through the Housing Element update to address the RHNA needs.

I am writing to you today to express my significant concerns about the zoning change being promulgated for the two parcels at the Northwest corner of Alamo Pintado at Old Mission Drive, currently designated as Site C (formerly designated sites 4 & 5). I am familiar with this site and in past years have walked it in the company of an Archaeologist who was supporting a resource assessment activity for the former Brand property Honey Locust development and another time during assessments for the Mission Oaks development as an informal interested observer.

I am concerned that the zoning change for this entire site from 20-R-1 to DR-20 will allow a higher density of development than this property can reasonably support and will set up future city wide problems in the areas of traffic, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure needs to accommodate the potentially large number of units that would be allowed under the DR-20 zoning.

I am troubled that this zoning change does not appear to be informed by an updated traffic and pedestrian safety impact assessment that includes not only the potential buildout of this site but also the impacts of other recently approved and developed projects, nor does it appear to be informed by the updated assessments of water use and runoff/flood issues. The property, particularly the hillside portion has produced significant runoff in the past causing flooding and debris issues on Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado.

During the most recent storm I observed that the runoff and debris from this property primarily went onto Alamo Pintado whereas in previous storms a fair amount has also gone onto Old Mission Drive.

Recent rains underscore the significance of this concern. I have been here long enough to have seen the Highway 246 Alamo Pintado Creek bridge overtopped and impacted by debris flow twice closing the highway as 805
well as the Alamo Pintado /Highway 246 intersection along with associated property damage to several businesses on the Northeast and Southeast corners of that intersection. Indeed, that intersection historically experiences large standing pools of water after heavy rains which create hazardous traffic and pedestrian conditions.

The section of the Housing Element that discusses the proposal for Site C acknowledges the difficulty of developing the steeper parcel, “Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop.” - page H-104 of the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA).

This is why the analysis projects the creation of only 20 affordable units for the site, even though 20 units per acre on 5.48 acres might result in 110 units. The cost of the remaining units constructed on the site will reflect how expensive their development will be.

Developing the entire site with 76 – 110 units would require extensive grading dramatically increasing the potential for soil erosion. The soils found on the larger parcel are problematic for construction with low permeability and rapid runoff.

I am aware of historical soil related foundation problems with some of the buildings in the Mission Oaks development. I have these same soils on my property nearby, and I understand the issues associated with them from my own home addition project as well as from monitoring the lot preparation work and associated issues with several other neighborhood developments.

It is notable that only the flatter parcel is needed for the City to produce the necessary number (20 total) of Very Low and Low Income units proposed for the site. The more expensive 56 units the larger parcel is theoretically projected to create, are not necessary, since the city will have more than enough Moderate and Above Moderate Income units to meet the State requirements (see Table H-59, pg. H-107 of the HNA).

The unneeded 56-90 expensive market rate homes would only add to the City’s water and traffic problems (especially at the intersection of Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive), while destroying a designated Scenic Vista and the historic Mission Aqueduct which crosses the larger parcel. A dense development built well above Alamo Pintado Road on the larger lot would have serious negative visual impacts for the entire community.

Traffic Safety will be substantially reduced by the likely need for direct access to Alamo Pintado from driveways from any new dense development. An alternative of exiting the site via Old Mission Drive is a poor option as it is already congested from a new development on Old Mission, from delivery trucks double parking and from customers arriving and departing Merkantile shopping center. Also the distance between the intersection of Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Drive and the entrance driveway to Mission Oaks are close together and adding another driveway to a large project there will likely lead to significant traffic issues.

Considering that Census statistics reveal the average number of people per household in California is 2.84. and lower income housing generally has a higher rate of occupancy of between 5 and 6 people, this project if built to the maximum allowed density (why would the developer try to do anything less?) would result in 300 to 500 new residents. Publicly available statistics on car ownership reveal that the average California household has 2.4 vehicles. This translates to around 264 vehicles at full project density. The California Department of Transportation reports that the average driver in California makes 3.77 vehicle trips per day. This project as 806
promulgated would likely produce around 1131 to 1885 vehicle trips per day. That is a huge increased burden on traffic not only on Alamo Pintado, Old Mission Drive and Highway 246 but also on all on Solvang’s throughfare routes.

These new residents would likely want to utilize Nielsen's Shopping center and, if driving, would have to negotiate across Alamo Pintado to get into the left turning lane, causing further congestion and accidents.

Turning left from a development crossing Alamo Pintado toward Los Olivos would be dangerous. Where Alamo Pintado has median dividers, drivers would have to make a U TURN at the Nielsen's shopping center. Ultimately another traffic signal may well be required there.

I recall from earlier traffic studies that Cal-Trans had advised it was infeasible to signalize the intersection of Old Mission Drive and Alamo Pintado Road due to its close proximity to the signalized intersection of Highway 246 and Alamo Pintado Road. Further, I recall that a determination was made that there is insufficient real estate available to construct a roundabout at Alamo Pintado Road and Old Mission Drive.

Traffic congestion will be substantially increased along Alamo Pintado and particularly at its intersection with Route 246 (Mission Drive). There are already numerous subdivisions that use Alamo Pintado to access Mission Drive into Solvang and Buellton or toward Santa Ynez and Santa Barbara. The highway 246/Alamo Pintado intersection is controlled by a traffic signal but traffic regularly backs up in the morning and afternoon particularly for people coming from Santa Barbara and the Los Angeles area. Some drivers along Alamo Pintado have resorted to taking the back way into Solvang using Viborg and Alisal Roads through residential neighborhoods to avoid the intersection, causing increasing safety concerns and complaints from those residents. Adding more than 264 vehicles at this end of town will make these problems substantially worse.

Pedestrian safety at all City intersections will also be compromised by all of these vehicle trips, principally for those choosing to cross Alamo Pintado to Nielsen's Center on foot. There are already issues at this intersection with impatient drivers and pedestrians, as I know from firsthand experience and having nearly been hit while crossing Alamo Pintado in the crosswalk on two different occasions. The increased pedestrian traffic from this project on crosswalks at Alamo Pintado, Old Mission Dr and Highway 246 as well as at Pine Street an Alisal Road would only further increase traffic congestion.

I believe putting high-density zoning on the hillside parcel is going to create a lot of problems in the future and the issues it will likely cause are not being addressed contemporaneously with this present housing element update. Therefore, I recommend not rezoning the hillside parcel until such studies have been completed so as to facilitate an informed decision.

Respectfully,
Craig Kent
1901 Old Mission Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
807
1/16/23, 1:16 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Housing element at Old Mission and Alamo Pintado
Barbara Allen <[email protected]>
Fri 1/13/2023 9:03 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Dear Sirs/Ladies….

My husband and I are 35 year residents of this beautiful Santa Ynez Valley.  We have lived at the City limits for all of that time and we are now residents of the Mission Oaks Community.  We raised one of our four daughters here where she attended Family School and Dunn School enjoying more beauty of the Valley.  I was the Executive Director of  Solvang Friendship House and have served on many local Solvang Boards, always happy to work for the greater good of our community.

We moved here from Orange County and have enjoyed the luxury of open spaces and beautiful views here in Solvang for all of this time.  Over these 35 years, we have watched as the traffic issues of a much bigger city have crept into our daily lives and it is with great concern that we watch the City Council and the Planning Commission consider authorizing housing at the intersection of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road.  Not only is this the entrance to the Solvang “Village”. It is an extremely busy intersection, closely connected to an even busier intersection at Alamo Pintado and Route 246.  We are very concerned that adding more traffic to this area will create a huge safety problem for the citizens of Solvang.  I have seen myself on numerous occasions, drivers speed thru  stop signs, make illegal turns and we have watched these intersections become more crowded and backed up as our community has grown.

We would ask that you  give service reconsideration to adding over 80 additional housing units to this very corner.

There are also the concerns of the historic aqueduct that is a part of the SYV history also, I am sure that you have been made aware of the soil issues in this area that will require a very expensive preparation for development.

We thank you for your time and service to keeping our Valley the beautiful and safe community we are all hoping to maintain.

Barbara and Ted Allen
764 Hillside Dr
Solvang, CA 93463
808
1/16/23, 1:16 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
High Density Zoning for 100 units at AP and Old Mission [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sat 1/14/2023 9:22 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Public City Council Group <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW a large complex of housing units to be built at the corning of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Drive.

This zoning change to allow a higher density of development than this property can reasonably support and will set up serious future Valley wide problems in the areas of safety, traffic, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure needed to accommodate such a large number of units that would be allowed under DR-20 zoning.

The current zoning is problematic at this location let alone changing it to be increased three times what it is currently zoned for.

If you must rezoning it for the mandate please attach a CC&R with a lower maximum number of units!
PLEASE for our future generations and the safety of all! Thank you.

Karry Rossetti
Solvang Resident
809
To: Solvang City Council
From: Monica Moisan
Date: January 13, 2023
RE: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Mayor Infanti and Council members,
I am a resident of Mission Oaks and I am fortunate that even later in my years I can still drive.

It has become more and more difficult since the traffic situation in Solvang has become overwhelming. Starting with leaving Mission Oaks it sometimes takes up to 2-3 Minutes for me to be able to turn left on Old Mission Drive due to traffic generated by New Frontiers Natural Food Market delivery trucks. Then I have to deal with a 4-way stop and the traffic lights onto Highway 246.

When I first moved to Solvang it took me perhaps 5 to 8 minutes to go to El Rancho Market (another market I go to) where as of now it can take up to 20 minutes, particularly to return.

Also, due to heavy traffic I no longer have the pleasure of driving through Solvang. The impact of additional housing could be such that even the smallest project like going to the market becomes a major undertaking.

So please don't take that away from me and the rest of us! Respectfully yours,
Monica Moisan
689 Hillside Drive, Solvang
[email protected]
810
811
812
Drone Photo: North View
Drone Photo: South View
Drone Photo: North View of Aqueduct
3 813
January 13, 2023
To: Solvang City Council
From: John Moisan
RE: Solvang Draft Housing Element
Dear Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
After attending two (2) city council meetings in December, I became more educated to Solvang’s low-cost housing needs and future building sites being considered. I understand an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be done on ALL sites identified in the Draft Housing Element which should reflect my concerns. In the unlikely event the EIR does not, the following are those impacts I deem most significant.

My greatest concerns rest most on Site C bordering Alamo Pintado Road. The site has been surveyed and recognized for its archeological significance. An aqueduct dating back several centuries runs through the property to our Santa Ynez Mission. It has both Missionary and Chumash historical importance. However, it appears few of us are aware nor concerned about our lawful responsibility to preserve it.

Another concern is the significant impact of an additional 100+ housing units on Site C will have on traffic. As a commuter to both Lompoc and Santa Barbara, I’ve witnessed the increased vehicular congestion on Highway 246 specially at the Alamo Pintado Road intersection. What used to occur on rare occasions is now more common where westbound traffic backs up to Refugio Road and eastbound back into the City of Solvang. Neighborhood roads are now also being impacted as residents seek shortcuts to escape the traffic.

The additional 100+ housing units proposed to be located in the heart of a traffic corridor would further expose our infrastructure problem and create a dangerous situation for emergency vehicles.

Thank you in advance for addressing my concerns,
John Moisan
688 Hillside Drive
[email protected]
814
1/16/23, 1:18 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Kathy Allain <[email protected]>
Mon 1/16/2023 8:41 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
I understand that the City of Solvang is required to regularly update the Housing Element and provide for diverse and affordable housing. Historically, Solvang has found it easier to produce more expensive housing and more difficult to produce the low cost units the state requires. Table H-1 shows that during the Fifth Cycle (2014-2022) the city easily provided 220% of the moderate and 153% of the above moderate income RHNA units required.

Because Solvang has limited space and limited resources the Housing Element needs to focus on providing more affordable units and avoid producing more of the expensive units than is necessary. But the current draft Housing Element, it encourages even more higher income units.

Table H-59 shows that the proposed rezoning is producing far more moderate and above moderate units than are necessary. The bottom row indicates that the numbers planned are 233% of the RHNA for moderate and 304% for above moderate. (233% appears to be an error, it is actually even worse – 286%) Site C is a prime example of this overemphasis on expensive housing. It has 2 very different parcels. Due to high development costs, the steep 4.48-acre parcel is not suitable for construction of high-density affordable housing. The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will undoubtedly be built on the flatter 1 acre parcel which has better access. This parcel is described as “significantly less costly to develop” on page H-104. But the Housing Element also proposes 56 unneeded higher income units on Site C, presumably built on the parts of the site not suitable for affordable housing. The actual development may include even more unneeded units because rezoning the 4.48-acre parcel for high density (DR-20) might actually allow for at least 80 additional higher income units above the 10 allowed under the current zoning.

The units are not even needed to meet the State's RHNA goals for moderate and above moderate housing.

Allowing them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion. It would destroy a section of the Historic Mission Aqueduct and a Solvang designated scenic vista and would increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. It would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Rezoning to allow more unnecessary higher income housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city. To correct this error, the steep 4.48-acre parcel should not be rezoned DR-20 and should be removed from Site C.

Thank you for your time and effort in serving our communityKathy Allain 757 Hillside Dr
815
1/16/23, 1:21 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAQAKr%2BjNQXCHhIv2fU7KIh464%3D 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
[#20221221183054] Comment from PlanSolvang website PlanSolvang Solvang General Plan Update <[email protected]> Wed 12/21/2022 10:33 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Xenia Bradford <[email protected]>;David Packard <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Ticket: [#20221221183054]
Name: Elaine Morris
e-mail: [email protected]
Comments:

The corner of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is a traffic nightmare. Please do not allow additional building in this area without in depth study of the potential fallout. Recent redevelopment of the Merkantile center and additional housing units have created a traffic nightmare. Please do not make it worse by further developing the area.

Page title: PlanSolvang
816
1/16/23, 1:07 PM Mail - Sophia Checa - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/AAMkAGRhMzRhYzZjLTJlYmQtNGZlNC1iNmYyLWRhZDNjZGE4MmFjNgAuAAAAAAAQnsO3NDNETqE%2BY8aduv1… 1/1 Allow sender | Block sender
Richmond Property at Corner of Alamo PIntado and Old Mission Drive and Zoning Change Gabriel Rossetti <[email protected]>
Fri 1/6/2023 10:17 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

I am a resident and homeowner at 1911 Old Mission Drive here in Solvang. I am writing to protest the egregious zoning change request by the owners of the property mentioned above.

Solvang does not have the infrastructure to support this request. There is not enough water, the traffic at that intersection will be untenable, and the waste water treatment facility is antiquated and not up to par. The soil in the upper parcels will not support that many homes safely, and by the way a home’s foundation in Mission Oaks just a few days ago has been slipping again.

Also the housing element plan does not need that dense a project to attain its goals.

I strongly urge you to deny this request.

Thank you,
Gabriel Rossetti
[email protected]
817
Comment RE Solvang Draft Housing Element
Site C Alamo Pintado
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element December 2022 Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers:

I am a resident of Mission Oaks and of Solvang for 21 years. I have attended the most recent Council meeting where there was some discussion of the development of Site C for low income affordable housing with the new proposal for higher income units.

As you assess this location, I want to urge you to take other concerns under consideration.

I hear that this site is proposed for housing for “workers”. I urge you to consider that workers have families with children. As proposed the density of this area does not provide for any space for children to play and do things such as ride bikes safety, walking would also present problems for pedestrians and automobile traffic. The density of the intersection would be dangerous for children and their pets. The provision of an accessible natural environment is not possible as this area is proposed. The entire intersection from Viborg to 246/Mission Drive and along Mission Drive to Alisal Rd. is commercial development (with the Sansum Medical Facility filling in the open field to the Santa Ynez Mission). I have not heard provisions for parking of cars and other vehicles.

With regards to children, there is only one elementary school for the Solvang District. Solvang School is currently overcrowded and understaffed. The possible addition of another 20-60+ students could present an untenable situation for students and teachers.

I also have concerns about the protection of the privacy and property use of the Mission Oaks area. I would assume that any development of Site C would provide privacy walls/gates that would protect the area from public use. Mission Oaks Home Owners Association assumes responsibility for the management of over 40 acers of protected oak trees, roads, trails, etc.

As you consider the many other matters regarding the development of this area, please consider the quality of living for those residents and their neighbors.

Respectfully,
Felicia Carroll
Felicia Carroll
Mission Oaks Resident
704 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
[email protected]
818
Allow sender | Block sender
Comment on public review draft of housing element December 2022 Maryvonne laparliere <[email protected]>
Mon 1/9/2023 11:45 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mr Infanti, Mayor of Solvang and City Council,
I urge you to remove the sloping 4.48 acre parcel #139-530-002 from Site C in the Public Review Draft of the Housing Element released in December 2022.

Before explaining the technical difficulties of that project, here are some very pragmatic reasons why I am against that project:

I doubt that the developers will care about the way the buildings will look and certainly not be in the old Danish style like in downtown or Spanish; so that would go against the vision of charming touristic Solvang and we could hear “it is not the way it used to be…”
Even the Police think that increased traffic will be a nightmare.

Accidents have already happened. We witnessed a few days ago a car speeding right through the stop sign at Nielsen’s!! There will be many more pedestrians.

Also we heard a lot of complaints already from the backroads because of people taking shorcuts to avoid the congestion.

Improvements will definitively need to be done by Caltrans if the project become concrete.

Due to high development costs, this steep parcel is not suitable for construction of high density affordable housing.

The 20 affordable units proposed for Site C will likely be built on the adjacent flatter 1 acre parcel.

Even though 56 HIGHER INCOME units are proposed for Site C, rezoning the 4.48 acre parcel for high density would actually allow for at least 81 additional higher income units above the 9 allowed by current zoning.

NONE OF THESE UNITS ARE NEEDED to meet the State's RHNA goals for moderate and above moderate housing. Building them would unnecessarily cause problems of erosion, flooding, soil and hilltop removal, traffic safety and congestion, destroy a Solvang designated scenic vista and increase the need for costly new infrastructure and services. Very importantly, it would also increase depletion of our scarce water resources.

Allowing so much unnecessary dense housing at what is already a congested gateway to Solvang is a planning error that will forever change the character of this unique neighborhood and damage first impressions of visitors to our city.

Thank you.

Maryvonne Laparliere Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang CA 93463v
819
Allow sender | Block sender
planned high density housing
ELAINE H MORRIS <[email protected]>
Wed 12/21/2022 10:26 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Greetings,
It appears that the City of Solvang is seriously considering rezoning the property at the corner of Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado Road in order to meet its requirement to develop more affordable housing in the city. This is disappointing to those of us who live nearby because building at that location is rife with problems. I would ask how much investigation was done prior to selecting that site; we deserve an answer.

The property is currently owned by Joshua Richman, who developed the “new” New Frontiers shopping center. Despite intense feedback from local residents, the project was completed with minimal foresight, and the result has been a traffic and parking nightmare.

The City Council cannot let this story repeat itself.

For starters, the city or Mr. Richmond MUST immediately erect cameras to monitor the traffic at that corner 24/7. That will enable the parties to make well founded decisions about further building at that location. It is a conversation we must have.

New Frontiers shops’ employees park on Old Mission Road because there is not sufficient parking in their own lot. That situation has been made worse by the construction of approximately 20 new dwelling units on Old Mission Road. The entrances to the shopping center are narrow, and delivery trucks block entrances and create traffic jams. I contacted the city both before and after this project was complete; nothing was done. Why? PLEASE do not let something similar happen if the proposed corner is developed. While the land may be “easy pickings”, the location is not. Creating more traffic problems at that intersection invites an accident, which when seen as preventable, could leave the city with liability.

I do not object to building on that lot, but I object to the type of building being considered. Dense housing with tenant parking will create more problems than it solves. Please do not repeat your past lack of oversight. If Mr. Richman is to develop this property, you must have a viable plan to deal with the resulting congestion, risk of accidents, traffic snarls, and lack of parking. Ongoing input from neighboring residents is critical, as we have the most to lose if this project is not done properly. We all recognize the need for more affordable housing in The Valley. But it is not our role to enhance Mr. Richman’s wealth at the expense of local residents’ ability to enjoy the safety and tranquility of their homes.

Elaine Morris
657 Hillside Dr.

Solvang
805-686-0019
820
Wednesday, 21 December 2022 18:30 PlanSolvang Elaine Morris [email protected] The corner of Alamo Pintado and Old Mission is a traffic nightmare. Please do not allow additional building in this area without in depth study of the potential fallout. Recent redevelopment of the Merkantile center and additional housing units have created a traffic nightmare. Please do not make it worse by further developing the area.

Wednesday, 21 December 2022 22:43 PlanSolvang Sophia Checa [email protected] Comments received via phone call 1) Table H-59 needs to be re-worked for clarity. It took a lot of analyzing the numbers to understand the surplis and percentages. We also have therecommendation to add a column for Extremely Low Income like the Projected Housing Needs table on page H-6. The math on Table H-59 needs to berevisited. I think the 20% buffer amounts are incorrect. Additionally, why are we shooting for higher than the RHNA with buffer?2) It is not clear where the New Construction Objectives on page H-6 came from. Did the city actually set these goals? The recommendation is to reduce them, if possible.3) When the Consultants speak to the public and City Council again, I recommend discussing how the analysis for the sites happened and how theydisbursed the various units (extremely low, low, etc) across the sites.Thank you! Thursday, 05 January 2023 19:49 PlanSolvang Stephen Martin [email protected] Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission I strongly urge you to exclude the steep 4.48 ac parcel from Site C (formerly Site 3) in the proposed Housing Element (HE). Solvang needs to encourage construction of affordable, not higher income, housing. Market conditions and existing zoning have historically been sufficient to easily meet the needs for higher income housing. While the proposed HE does encourage affordable housing, it also unnecessarily proposes high density zoning in areas where high development costs will likely exclude affordable housing. History tells us that this will use up land in order to develop unneeded moderate and higher income houses. According to the 2015 to 2023 HE 5th cycle planning period report at page H-23, table H-1, Solvang exceeded State Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for additional moderate and above moderate housing by 220% and 153% respectively.

Friday, 06 January 2023 22:47 PlanSolvang Ester Smith [email protected] Taken via phone by Sophia: I am very concerned about the rezone and building of the low-income housing at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission. I am concerned it will bring the property values down. I've seen different low-income homes that are not taken care of very well; people don't appreciate what the y are able to rent. It is m
y concern this will happen in this case
Friday, 13 January 2023 19:59 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] On Table H-1 entitled Fifth cycle (2015-2023) Housing Element Progress, there is a math error in the second row, last column: the total should be 261, not 132.Friday, 13 January 2023 20:02 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] In the section entitled Opportunities for Energy Conservation on page H-84, there is a paragraph about Southern California Edison Energy Programs. SCE doesn't serve Solvang. Please replace with PG&E and/or 3CE, which do serve Solvang.Friday, 13 January 2023 20:05 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] I have a general concern about the state law, which disregards whether a jurisdiction (City) has sufficient resources (water) to build the RNHA -allocated number of housing units.Friday, 13 January 2023 20:10 PlanSolvang Gay Infanti [email protected] Another concern is that the state doesn't require a large enough percentage of units in a single development project to justify the incentives that a developer can claim. These incentives, such as exemptions from height limits or setbacks,can really destroy the quality of life in a neighborhood.Friday, 13 January 2023 22:15 PlanSolvang Josh Richman [email protected] In response to the circulated draft Housing Element, I have submitted a comment letter to Sophia Checa by email. This comment field is limited to 1,000 characters which is less than my comment letter. JoshSunday, 15 January 2023 23:37 PlanSolvang Sheri Noble [email protected] Cannot fit all comments in a few words. I do not believe we have approved evacuation routes in an emergency as stated in this document. I would like to learn more. In my 1/4 acre lot/single family neighborhood with all single story homes, I can put up 2 ADU's even during a "drought" and our master plan is maintained on all single story homes? This does not make sense. The city cannot currently maintain the current creeks during a storm, how will flood zones be maintained? Will only property owners pay for this? Traffic on Mission has to be addressed. It is hypocritical to have more growth without considering the infrastructure. Please proceed carefully to maintain the character that led us to purchase homes in Solvang. 821
Attachment C
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Rodger Olds, Public Works Director/City Engineer Sophia Checa, Planning Manager
Laurie Tamura, Planning Consultant
MEETING DATE: December 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Receive and file the preliminary draft general plan for comment at a future meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the Preliminary Draft of General Plan for review and comment at a future meeting.

BACKGROUND:

The General Plan is a vision for how the City of Solvang will grow, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future – a long-term framework for future growth and development. The General Plan also contains the goals and policies upon which the City Council and Planning Commission will base their land use decisions. There are nine mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, Environmental Justice, and Air Quality.

Solvang has chosen to include two optional elements: Community Design and Economic Development.

Over the last two years, Mintier Harnish has been working with the City of Solvang to update all the elements of the City of Solvang General Plan. The city has updated various elements, particularly the Housing Element, when required by State Law. A requirement to update the Housing Element is currently mandated by the State of California with a submission deadline of February 15, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was established early in the update process. This committee consists of two City Council Members, two Planning Commissioners, two Design Review Committee Members, and four at-large members.

The Planning Commission (PC) was provided with all elements of the General Plan and provided comments focused on the Housing Element at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 5th. The GPAC has completed the review of all the elements except for the Community Design (CD) Element, which has been partially completed. The GPAC meeting of December 14 will focus on completing the review of the CD Element and revisiting all elements of the General Plan as a complete document.

The schedule for the completion of the General Plan Update has shifted due to a change in leadership at the City of Solvang. While comments and review are still ongoing, staff is providing the preliminary draft of the General Plan for initial City Council review, included as Attachment A. 822
Housing Element Process
The only element of the General Plan that must be approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the Housing Element. This element was not started until the state and the county approved the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RNHA) numbers for 2022-2031.

The final housing number were approved in early 2022, and the City of Solvang housing assignment is 191 units.

The consultants started the final work on the Housing Element with the focus of finding vacant or underutilized sites to add housing. The first draft of the Housing Element was provided to City Staff in early October. HCD set a deadline for each jurisdiction in Santa Barbara County to submit the approved final, certified Housing Element. The deadline for jurisdiction in Santa Barbara County by February 15, 2023. There are several steps that the city needs to conduct before this final Housing Element can be filed with HCD:

1. 30-day public comment period: The Draft Housing Element along with the required the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) must be circulated for a 30 day public review period. The consultants are preparing the draft document, and staff is ready to release the draft document on December 19th with the closing of the public comment period on January 18th.

2. Response to Public Comments: After the 30-day review, the consultants are scheduled to take 10 days to prepare responses to the public comments and amend the Draft Housing Element accordingly.

3. City Council review of Daft Housing Element for submittal: Staff has targeted the January 23, 2023, and the February 13, 2023, for City Council Hearings to review the responses to comments and the changes to the Draft Housing Element. The goal is to have the City Council direct staff to file the Draft Housing Element to HCD for preliminary review on February 15, 2023, for HCD review and comment and authorize the start of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) of the General Plan Elements.

4. Environmental Impact Review Process (estimated 9-10 months): The consultants will take about five to nine months to prepare the Draft EIR. There will be an estimated one-month block of time for city staff and the consultants to review and edit the Draft EIR. There will then be a 45- day public review period for the Draft EIR. Within this 45-day period, there will be a public workshop for public comment. At the end of the public review period. the consultants and city staff will have about one month to respond to the comment letters emails, and verbal comments.

5. Public review General Plan Elements and EIR (estimated 4 months): Once the EIR process is completed and hearing Draft EIR is ready for Public Hearing, staff will have meetings with the GPAC, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council for final approval.

6. Complete filing of the Approved Housing Element: Based on the above timeline the approved Final Housing Element will be final with HCD in March to April of 2024.

This summary indicates that we have another 15 to 18 months to complete this General Plan update process. During this remaining time, there will be multiple public meetings and opportunities for public comments.

State Law on Housing Element Delays:

For jurisdictions that have not fully completed their Housing Element review, state law has established several consequences for not meeting the February 15, 2023 deadline:
1) The City of Solvang cannot qualify for any grants that require a certified Housing Element by HCD.
823
2) The deadline for rezoning land to align with the updated housing element is one year instead of three years.
3) Builder’s Remedy arises out of the Housing Accountability Act. See Attachment B for more information.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council can provide direction to staff regarding the timing of the review of the Preliminary Draft of the General Plan Update, either the Housing Element alone or the entire document.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City Council approved a General Plan Update contract in 2020 with two amendments for a total of almost $700,000.00. There may be an additional contract amendment as this project moves through the next 18 months.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Preliminary Draft General Plan
B – The Builder’s Remedy and Housing Elements
C – Public Comment on the Housing Element
824

SOLVANG CITY COUNCIL
January 23, 2023
Agenda Item 6.d
Discussion and possible action to receive and file the draft Housing Element of the General Plan
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO 4 PM ON JANUARY
23, 2023
825
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
63 14 20 71 168
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 66 59 63 228 416
RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 230
Surplus (beyond buffered total) +/- 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 186 % of RHNA Planned 120 % 126 % 233 % 304 % 218 %
ORIGINAL DRAFT - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Plan Solvang
(1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period [ ] Errors Slide 1
826
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
63 14 20 71 168
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 66 59 63 228 416
RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 215 (230) Surplus (beyond buffered total) +/- 0 + 12 + 36 + 153 + 201 (+ 186) % of RHNA Planned 120 % 151 % (126 %) 286 % (233 %) 304 % 218 % ORIGINAL DRAFT (ERRORS CORRECTED) - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Slide 2
(1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period Plan Solvang
827
ORIGINAL DRAFT - Table H-54 List of Vacant Sites Requiring Rezoning; H-98 / Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Site Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA Income
Categories
Notes
A 741 Alamo Pintado
Road; 739 Alamo
Pintado Road
139-031-064;
139-031-063

1.0 20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
17 6 Very Low
5 Low
6 Above Moderate
5th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
56 and 57)
B 1999 Viborg Road 139-031-020 0.64 20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
11 4 Very Low
4 Low
3 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
26); 5th cycle above moderate
– income opportunity site
(Site 55)
C Parcel west of junction
Alamo Pintado Road /
Village Ln; Northwest
corner Alamo Pintado
Rd / Old Mission Dr
139-530-002;
139-530-001

5.48 20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
76 18 Very Low
2 Low
20 Moderate
36 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
22-23); 5th cycle above
moderate – income
opportunity site (Site 87-88)
D West of Alisal Road;
bisected by Juniper
Avenue
137-260-021 3.71 REC 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
64 35 Very Low
3 Low
26 Above Moderate
Only 3.71 acres of 5.83- acre
property developable due to
Alisal Road’s realignment
within parcel boundary due to
washout of Alisal Bridge in
January 1969
Plan Solvang
Slide 3
828
REVISED PROPOSAL - Table H-54 List of Vacant Sites Requiring Rezoning; H-98 / Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Site Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA Income
Categories
Notes
A 741 Alamo Pintado
Road; 739 Alamo
Pintado Road
139-031-064;
139-031-063

1.0 20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac as
required by State Law
(17)
0 6 Very Low
5 Low
6 Above Moderate
5th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
56 and 57)
B 1999 Viborg Road 139-031-020 0.64 20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
11 6 ( 4 ) Very Low
2 ( 4 ) Low
3 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
26); 5th cycle above moderate
– income opportunity site
(Site 55)
C Parcel west of
junction Alamo
Pintado Road /
Village Ln;
Northwest corner
Alamo Pintado Rd /
Old Mission Dr
139-530-002;
139-530-001

5.48 1.0
20-R-1 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
(76)
20 20 ( 18 ) Very Low
2 Low
20 Moderate
36 Above Moderate
4th cycle above moderate –
income opportunity site (Site
22-23); 5th cycle above
moderate – income
opportunity site (Site 87-88)
D West of Alisal Road;
bisected by Juniper
Avenue
137-260-021 3.71 REC 20-R-20
(minimum 20 du/ac
as required by State
Law
64 38 ( 35 ) Very Low
3 Low
26 Above Moderate
Only 3.71 acres of 5.83- acre
property developable due to
Alisal Road’s realignment
within parcel boundary due to
washout of Alisal Bridge in
January 1969
Plan Solvang
Slide 4
829
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 55 39 22 75 191
Credits
Pending / Approved
Projects
3 45 10 51 109
ADU Projections 0 0 32 32 64
Site
Inventory
Vacant Sites 0 0 1 74 75
Vacant Sites Requiring
Rezoning
64 ( 63 ) 2 ( 14 ) 0 ( 20 ) 29 ( 71 ) 95 ( 168 )
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 67 ( 66 ) 47 ( 59 ) 43 ( 63 ) 186 ( 228 ) 343 ( 416 ) RHNA with required 20 % buffer (1) 66 47 27 75 215
Surplus (beyond buffered total) +1 ( +/- 0 ) 0 ( + 12 ) +16 ( + 36 ) +111 ( + 153 ) +128 ( + 201) % of RHNA Planned 122 % ( 120 %) 121 % ( 151 % ) 195 % (286 %) 248 % ( 304 % ) 180% ( 218 %) REVISED PROPOSAL - Table H-59 Site Inventory; page 478/ Public Review Draft Housing Needs Assessment, December 2022 Plan Solvang
(1) No-net-loss provisions of Government Code Section 65863 require all jurisdictions to provide an additional 20 % buffer to ensure capacity is maintained throughout the planning period Slide 5 830
Allow sender | Block sender
RE: Housing Element / 741 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang
Brett Jones <[email protected]>
Sat 1/21/2023 2:28 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>;Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Hi Sophia,
On behalf of my sister-in-law, Michele Jacobsen, I wanted to officially state that she and I (a resident of Solvang) are against the potential rezoning of her vacant property, located at 741 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang.

Can you make sure that this letter is included as public comment and is part of any packets for the Planning Commission or the City Council? Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Brett Jones
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]>; Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Brett Jones <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]>; Rodger Olds <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang I have added it to their folders. Thank you!
From: Brett Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 4:00 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Thank you Sophia.

Yes, please include this email as public comment.

Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
From: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Brett Jones <[email protected]>; Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Hi Brett,
Thank you for following up. Do you want me to submit this for the record as public comment? I am new to being involved in this process, so I will answer the best I can. Laurie, our Planning Consultant, is the other email address on the Planning Dept Public List. She is more familiar with General Plan processes and may weigh in as well.

There is a responsibility to inform the property owner of a potential re-zone. I am not sure when it typically is supposed to happen.

Once the General Plan is no longer being modified, it will undergo an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process with the other elements of the general plan. I believe the rezone will happen after the completion of the EIR as the environmental impact of the rezone is being assessed through the EIR. The city council would also need to vote to approve it.
831
It does not require a property owner to propose any development. There are several parcels on Copenhagen Drive that were rezoned around 2007 where proposed development did not happen until this year. Through the Housing Element, we need to show either projects in the works or land that could be redeveloped to account for all of the units we need in order to meet out Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number.

I looked in the Housing Element. It does not look like 737 APR (745 APR on the Assessor's Look Up) is being considered either as a site that does not require rezone or as a site that requires rezone.

Table H-52 List of Vacant Sites Not Requiring Rezoning is on pages 172 through 174: _12052022-739 (cityofsolvang.com).

I will need Laurie to weigh in on this. I do not believe you are locked in to having to provide low-income units. However, I could see ramifications in terms of having to state that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan when we are writing the Planning Commission Staff Report. Additionally, we'd need to identify another site to allocate those units. I am curious what Laurie will say. She will be attending the meeting virtually.

Thank you,
Sophia
From: Brett Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Planning Dept Public List <[email protected]> Cc: Angela Janes <[email protected]>; Michele Jacobsen <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element / 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang Hi Sophia,
My sister-in-law is the property owner of 737 Alamo Pintado Road, Solvang and she also owns 741 AP Road, a vacant parcel that is currently under review for re-zoning. She and I have a few questions:

What is the City’s process and / or responsibility to inform a property owner of a potential re-zone? What is the next step in this re-zone process?
Does this re-zone require the property owner to propose any development? How does the re-zone affect the property directly to the west (737 APR) / is that developed parcel being considered as part of the re-zone? Is the re-zoned property required to include a low-income component. For example, if a SFD and an ADU is proposed on the parcel, would either unit be required to be low income? I will plan on attending the Zoom meeting tonight and can ask these questions there, as well.

Thank you!
Brett Jones
Jones Land Use Planning, LLC
P. O. Box 847 / 2922 Grand Ave., Suite J
Los Olivos, CA 93441
[email protected]
www.joneslanduse.com
832
(805) 688-4974 (office)
(805) 886-2706 (cell)
833
834
835
FW: housing element
Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Mon 1/23/2023 8:21 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Laura Ishikawa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:07 AM
To: City Hall <[email protected]>; Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Subject: housing element
Solvang City Council - I know that the housing element is a complex issue and I understand no one wants to have more housing next to them in what is currently open space such as the lots being conside Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend
Solvang City Council -
I know that the housing element is a complex issue and I understand no one wants to have more housing next to them in what is currently open space such as the lots being considered on Alamo Pintado, but clearly the state is requiring us to provide more housing.

I agree with the comments in the draft housing element that the Alamo Pintado lots are ideal for more housing as those locations are walkable to many amenities such as grocery stores, medical, pharmacies, and restaurants.

I feel that what Solvang is missing is moderate/mid-level housing/ "starter homes". I work as a public-school teacher and my amazing paraprofessionals have been trying to break into the housing market for years but so much of what has been available has been high end/huge houses that are out of financial reach for them. They tell me "I don't need big and fancy, I just want to stop renting and own my own place". They are trying to begin to build their generational wealth for themselves as well as for their children.

Please encourage the developers to provide as much moderate "missing middle" housing as possible (small but not tiny) and housing affordable to basic working folks.

Thank you for your hard work.

Laura Ishikawa
Solvang Resident
836
Lansing Duncan
635 Aqueduct Way
Solvang, CA 93463
Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
Thank you for listening to the concerns of Solvang residents on Monday December 12 regarding the Housing Element proposal to develop 90-110 or more units on Site 3 (now labeled Site C.) Those residents pointed out the many reasons why the steeper hillside parcel would be very expensive to develop and would not result in affordable units. Your own staff has pointed out this issue and stated that the entire site with both parcels “should be at the most 20 units in the low category with the rest at market rate.”
Reflecting that statement, the current Public Review Draft now shows 18 Very Low units and 2 Low units. These units could be more easily developed on the lower flatter site described as “significantly less costly to develop” without the construction of the additional 20 Moderate and 36 Above Moderate units, undoubtedly sited on the steep hillside parcel, that the City does not need.

At the December hearing the owner and prospective developer of Site C (formerly Site 3) spoke after residents so there was no opportunity for residents to rebut his comments. This letter will address some of the pointed questions and confident assertions the owner made.

The owner questioned the fact that only his site had been commented on by the speakers. I suspect there are many reasons for that. The first being that the number of units proposed for Site C is far larger than any other site. Secondly, Site C with its prominent hill is highly visible to members of the public who live in the neighborhood or shop at the two nearby shopping centers. Thirdly, Site C is the most egregiously poorly-considered proposal of all sites by far.

There were legitimate reasons motivating the comments of the speakers. It was not a personal attack on the owners.

The owner also wondered why only Mission Oaks residents questioned the appropriateness of Site C to support affordable housing on the scale proposed. I suspect this was because a relatively small number of Solvang citizens were aware of what is proposed. The draft document had only been released prior to the Planning Commission hearing which occurred just a week before the Council’s meeting.

It is totally understandable that neighbors are the city residents most likely to be able to identify a piece of property from the minimal description incorporated in planning documents. When a property has no address and only an APN is listed it can be difficult to know what is being discussed. Mission Oaks residents abut the Site C parcels to the west and to the north so it is not surprising that they are more familiar with its location. They are also the City residents who are 837
most familiar with some of the challenges to develop it, such as the steep terrain, the existing drainage, the Mission Aqueduct and the difficult expansive soils involved.

It is not surprising that the owners of the shopping center across the street were not protesting the prospect of hundreds of new customers. And it is not surprising that the owners of the Merkantile to the south, were not calling attention to Site C, since they are also the owners of Site C. Would the owners of Site C prefer that no residents talk about how appropriate the steep hillside of Site C is for the dense development proposed and the production of affordable housing? Fortunately, Solvang residents have the opportunity to be heard when they speak out about poorly considered public planning decisions that will affect them.

The owner cited the redevelopment of the Merkantile as an example of dealing with the problems that would be encountered on Site C. The neighbors who experienced the demolition of the Valley Plaza Shopping Center and its replacement with the Merkantile however, might question the confidence expressed by the developer. Those who monitored the project know that the project was continually in flux and many promises made to the neighborhood never panned out. Numerous impacts to the community were not adequately mitigated and continue to this day.

Many residents questioned why a California Ranch style shopping center such as Valley Plaza, so well-suited to the topography of the site, and the residential neighborhood, was being demolished. They were told that the new shopping center would have direct access to Hwy. 246 thereby reducing the traffic on Old Mission Drive and the impacts to the neighborhood. That did not happen because Caltrans ultimately denied access.

The community pushed back when the developer proposed to cut down all of the many specimen trees on the site. The developer then claimed that he would be able to retain all the perimeter trees including the large Sycamores, but all the interior trees would have to be removed. Two subsequent revisions to the project however, required the removal of 8 more mature trees. The original grading plan did not meet the necessary standards and had to be revised, lowering the grade behind New Frontiers and removing more trees. A significant 37% expansion to the Forest Service building required more removal of screening trees.

The community was told that the hedge behind the large New Frontiers building that helped protect the neighborhood could be retained, but then we were told it would have to be removed.

Only because the community objected and the modification appealed, was the project revised to allow its retention. Because the five existing trees that would have screened the back of New Frontiers had to be removed, new trees (5 along Old Mission Drive) were promised to replace those that had to be removed, but they were never planted. Others trees that were planted have died and have not been replaced. The hedge was supposed to grow to 8’ high to provide screening but it remains less than 6’. There are many areas where the landscaping has died and has not been replaced. Transformers that were never shown on the original plans have no landscaping to screen them from the residential neighborhood. 838
Solvang requires that parking lots be screened by walls or landscaping from public roadways but the plantings that were supposed to screen the large parking lot visible from Hwy. 246 and Alamo Pintado Road have failed to do so. The only substantial landscaping features are some shrubs along Hwy. 246 that were part of the Valley Plaza’s well-established landscape, and the large perimeter Sycamores that the neighbors insisted be retained. But they are deciduous so when they are out of leaf the shopping center and all its bulk and signage is totally visible. Too many of the much smaller new trees are also deciduous. More evergreen trees should have been used. They would provide much needed shade that was readily available in the old Valley Plaza Shopping Center that hosted concerts on the grass.

Originally the commercial square footage of the Merkantile was comparable to that of Valley Plaza plus the addition of eight apartments that were supposed to expand the diversity and affordability of Solvang’s housing. Ultimately the commercial space was substantially increased and five of the apartments became Air BnB rentals.

The community was told that all the tenants of the Merkantile would be locally -owned businesses but that has not panned out. New Frontiers itself, is the only business that could be considered locally-owned. The local businesses that attempted to locate on the Merkantile site ultimately moved out, presumably because the location was inappropriate and / or the rents were too expensive.

Neighbors were concerned that the expanded size and uses of the Merkantile would negatively impact public safety and parking on Old Mission Drive, which is substandard in places. They were told that there would be ample parking on site for customers, residents and employees and that the improved New Frontiers loading dock would take care of deliveries. In fact, certain businesses insist that their employees park on the street and large trucks often park or doublepark on Old Mission Drive while making, or waiting to make, deliveries. The loading dock is difficult to access and vehicles waiting to use it can block the entry to the shopping center.

The shopping center is supposedly pedestrian friendly but both the entries from Old Mission Drive lack pedestrian sidewalks that would connect the interior sidewalks with the public sidewalk. Pedestrians have to walk in the driveways and dodge vehicles.

All the buildings of The Merkantile are essentially two-story. The Bank building is actually single story but its massing is that of a two-story building. It is placed ten feet closer to Alamo Pintado Road than indicated on the plans shown to the public and the Planning Commission.

Since it is placed at a high elevation well above Alamo Pintado Road, it intrudes dramatically on the public streetscape and dramatically infringes on the canopy of an existing Sycamore, in violation of the project’s Tree Protection Plan.

Because The Merkantile sits on the highest corner of this gateway intersection it should have been designed with a low profile to fit with the topography and the surrounding development. 839
But instead, it was designed to have as much visibility as possible, in order to serve as a billboard for its elevated signage.

Almost all the Valley Plaza Shopping center appeared to be single-story. Although the People Helping People building was two-story it was set into the grade and back from the road to reduce visual impacts. The four unobtrusive upper-story apartments were carefully placed to reduce visual impacts, most people were unaware of their existence. Valley Plaza did not have the large blank walls seen at the back and side of the New Frontiers building leading the neighbors to call the building “The Penitentiary.” Neighbors were able to look over the old shopping center to see the mountains.

Valley Plaza signage was unobtrusive and dramatically different from the interior-lit signage and multiple monument signs of the Merkantile. The entry to Solvang was unnecessarily impacted by the demolition of the lushly landscaped well-designed Valley Plaza Shopping Center and the erection of The Merkantile. The last step in its construction was the expansion of the highly visible Forest Service building with its fenced parking lot, the addition of another large monument sign and the poorly-placed brightly lit charging stations that are totally out-ofplace.

The owner and developer of The Merkantile will face much larger challenges in the creation of affordable housing on the steep hillside parcel of Site C. He will not be able to take advantage of existing retaining walls on the north and south side of the site as he was at the Merkantile. He will have to develop entirely new access to public roads and drainage infrastructure on a far more challenging site with a 64 foot change in elevation. He will not be able to rely upon any existing landscaping. He will have to deal with an existing drainage that runs through the site and protect the Historic Mission Aqueduct. But most importantly, if he were actually constrained to produce affordable housing, he would not be able to continually revise the business plan, the site plan, the tenants, the customer base, the rents and /or the sales prices to pay for the very expensive costs of developing on such a challenging site.

Depending on your perspective, you may or may not consider The Merkantile an unqualified success, but there is no question that many of the original promises made to the community have not been realized, suggesting that future development of a far more challenging site by the developer, cannot be relied upon to produce truly affordable housing.

Thank you for your consideration,
Lansing Duncan
840
To: Sophia Checa, Planning Manager and the Solvang City Council Topic: Development of Parcels C at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road Dear Sophia Checa and our Solvang City Council,
Meetings are coming up for discussion on the proposed development by owner Joshua Richman on the two parcels he owns.

We understand the need for Solvang to comply with the State of California’s housing needs.

We are okay with projects that will provide this housing, without deteriorating the quality of where we all live.

We have read the 2022 Solvang Housing Element and a few items are of concern.

It says some reductions in parking requirements could be considered. I believe we read that one single space per unit could be the minimum. This would mean that the unit’s other vehicles would park offsite. Here at Old Mission Road, there is no parking available. The good folks who work at the New Frontiers store and the other businesses park regularly on the Old Mission Street. We also have the large produce trucks that park on the street as they wait to use the single unloading dock for New Frontiers.

If this were allowed, we anticipate some 40+ vehicles looking for parking daily. So, we have a few questions.
1- How many vehicles would the City Council or the developer need to park off of the building site?
2- Does the developer suggest another location for these vehicles which will not fit in the parking space of their unit?
3- What would occur if these same vehicles started parking in the shopping centers at New Frontiers and at Rite Aid and Leonardo’s? The other concern is the horse trading that will occur between the City Council and the Developer. It is our hope that the City, does not bear any cost for this project. If the developer builds a quality housing project with 841
access, parking, and low- income housing. We are sure he would recoup his monies with the sale of the upper priced homes on the hill.

That being said, we appreciate the work that you have done and know that you first thoughts are what is good for all parties concerned. It could be a good project.

Sincerely,
Jack and Elizabeth Clymer
842
FW: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units;
Annamarie Porter <[email protected]>
Mon 1/23/2023 8:29 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]> From: Stephanie Statom <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units; Dear Planning Commission, I am not in favor of the proposed zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units; draft housing element project. My con Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender sophospsmartbannerend
Dear Planning Commission,
I am not in favor of the proposed zoning change on the Alamo Pintado and Old Mission intersection to allow high density of 76-110 units; draft housing element project.

My concern is the corridor for wildlife.

The corridor for wildlife has already been impacted and narrowed greatly by the newest projects around Alamo Pintado, hwy 246 and Old Mission drive cul-de-sac where fencing is cutting off fair passage for deer, bob cat, badger, coyote and greater apex predator such as mountain lion. If you take a drive or a walk along historic Old Mission drive you will see the south side is now solidly fenced. The only unfenced area is east side of the very busy Merkantile parking lot which sits next to the flow of heavy traffic on Alamo Pintado and hwy 246.

I would warn that once these and other projects go up, there is and will be no way to go backwards to mitigate the thoroughfare necessary to sustain healthy and necessary passage.

The issue of fencing needs to be considered ahead of time with a fair environmental review, a review by those who are on the side of wildlife as opposed to a review made by those who would benefit from the current proposal.

I could not find a fair consideration comment from the property owner regarding wildlife and would like to know if this person is even aware of such things - the Cougar and Deer and Bobcat, the Hawks and threatened songbirds who live there. I'd also like to know whether the planning commission is considering the subject of wildlife existing among us as a whole... not on separate lots but how we want to live with them and what our duty to them looks like on a bigger scale.

As it stands now this project would disrupt and destroy the only piece of land left that safely accepts and provides harbor, food and respite for wildlife who live among us who have to navigate through Solvang from the low lying land below the Old Mission and either forge under the Alamo Pintado bridge or risk crossing hwy 246’s heavily trafficked road, and make their way north up Alamo Pintado. This corridor is important for them. It is to their benefit that there is a stop light at 246 and Alamo Pintado but it still doesn't keep wildlife from being hit by cars and nor keep humans safe from injury due to collisions with wildlife.

As Solvang gets more and more congested the concern for wildlife passage should be a priority. As I stated above - you can’t go backwards once it’s done.

I would ask the planning commission to please be aware of how any current and proposed projects already do and will include fencing that cuts of safe passage now and in the future to corridors that have existed for years and years. *** The fencing at Los Padres National Forest new offices in the Merkantile parking lot, the adjacent building west of the Los Padres offices, and the extreme fencing at the cul-de-sac on Old Mission dr. is an example of how 3 different projects ended up cutting off entry for wildlife coming from south side of 246. The townhouses at the end of Old Mission cul de sac have a solid fence cutting off all access and what’s left is essentially a dangerous ravine between their backyards and 843
hwy 246. The fencing goes all the way around to 246. How is wildlife supposed to manage safely? The new proposed project will undoubtedly further cut off another vital portion of corridor and chop it up.

Housing implies noisy humans, dogs and pets who through no fault of their own will undoubtedly frighten , detour and injure wildlife. The consequences of causing fear to wildlife will undoubtedly cause greater peril and death for wildlife who have no other option but to run into traffic to get away from pets and people. Of course this implies increased traffic accidents i.e. animal/verses/vehicles collisions and higher mortality.

One element necessary for healthy wildlife is wild untouched land, peace and quiet and this is key. I would say humans need this as well. We all benefit from open pasture.

All these things need to be seen as a whole not as separate issues. In other words as each project comes before you the whole issue of healthy wildlife, their corridors and safe sustaining lands and passage should have already been studied on a grander scale. It should be and needs to be an important element and a key factor in the planning of Solvang.

I understand the pressure the state is applying to build affordable housing but this lot is important for wildlife.

Please be fair and be educated in your decisions.

Thank you for listening to me,
Sincerely,
Stephanie Statom
404 First st
Solvang, California
805-574-0061
844

1. 30-day public comment period: The 30-day review period ended on January 15th.

2. Response to public comments: The consultants take at least 10-days to prepare responses to the public comments and amend the Housing Element accordingly.

3. City Council review of the public review draft of the Housing Element and public comment received during the 30-day public comment period: Staff presented the public review draft of the Housing Element and all comments received to the City Council for their meeting on January 23, 2023. The consultants attended virtually and made a presentation.

4. Submittal of the Housing Element to HCD: Staff has targeted the City Council meeting of February 13, 2023 have City Council provide direction to staff to file the Draft Housing Element to HCD for preliminary review on February 15, 2023. Staff anticipates receiving a lot of comments from HCD.

5. Initiation of the Environmental Impact Report: Staff will ask for authorization to start the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff will bring this to the Council as soon as possible.

6. Environmental Impact Report (estimated 8-15 months): The consultants will take about five to nine months to prepare the Draft EIR. After the EIR is drafted, there will be an approximately one-month block of time for city staff and the consultants to review and edit the draft EIR then there will then be a 45-day public review period. Within this 45-day period, there will be a public workshop to gather public comment. At the end of the public review period, the consultants and city staff will have about one month to respond to public comment received.

7. Public review of General Plan Elements and EIR (estimated 4 months): Once the EIR process is completed and hearing Draft EIR is ready for Public Hearing, staff will have meetings with the GPAC, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council for final approval.

8. Approve and file the final, certified Housing Element: Based on the above timeline the approved Final Housing Element will be final with HCD in the spring of 2024.

Attachment D
845

SOLVANG CITY COUNCIL
February 13, 2023
Agenda Item 6.a
Discussion and possible action to approve the Draft Housing Element for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED
Attachment E
846
Planning for Solvang’s Future needs a broad view and a long-term perspective.

Members of the public who attended or watched the Solvang City Council’s consideration of the Housing Element Update on Monday January 23rd saw a storybook illustration showing how overdependence on consultants can promote irrational decision making. Fortunately, the Council, spurred by members of the public in attendance, found a way to incorporate a broader vision of the City’s future than that being recommended by Mintier-Harnish, the firm hired by the City to assist with the process of updating the Housing Element and the entire General Plan.

On the 23rd, numerous speakers pointed out that the steeper hillside parcel of Site 3 was inappropriate for high-density development and that it would be very expensive to develop. The flatter parcel would be easier and far less expensive to develop, as noted in the report, and therefore more appropriate for the creation of affordable housing. They also noted that the proposal for Site 3 included not only 20 affordable units that are needed to meet the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) targets, but also 56 units in the Moderate and Above Moderate categories that are not needed. These unneeded more expensive units would undoubtedly be sited on the steep hillside that would be more expensive to develop. They would also contribute to traffic congestion and water use, two critical issues for Solvang.

Mintier-Harnish claimed that the Housing Element was entirely about satisfying Housing and Community Development (HCD) in Sacramento and that should be the City’s sole focus. Because HCD does not consider water and traffic issues to be issues of importance, the consultants seemed to suggest that the City’s deliberations be equally blind to those issues. But this ignores a broader framework of housing policy established in the Introduction to the Housing Element: “The Housing Element sets the community goals and policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units to meet the needs of Solvang residents (presently and throughout the planning period.)”
It was not entirely surprising that the consultant’s recommendations were disproportionately focused on identifying Opportunity Sites that would generate housing at the different income levels. But it was amazing how the relatively short-term goal of achieving the necessary RHNA on paper that would appease the State in the coming year, resulting in a certified Housing Element, totally distorted the vision of the consultants that were hired to help Solvang plan the future.

If Solvang had their own forward-thinking planners they would have pointed out that the Council’s and the City’s goals extend beyond those of the consultant, but Solvang is 847
only now rebuilding a Planning Division that was previously dismantled. In the larger scheme of things, the eight-year housing cycle, and the need to have a certified Housing Element are relatively short-term goals. The consultant’s recommendations being challenged by the public were overwhelmingly focused on a few vacant parcels. In order to really plan for the future there is a need to consider impacts that ripple into the future infinitely and affect the entire City’s well-being, both physically and fiscally. Traffic and water problems will unquestionably remain critical issues for Solvang far into the future.

Mintier-Harnish’s tunnel vision on display at the City Council meeting was particularly alarming considering that the same firm is assisting the City with the entire General Plan update. Although the General Plan typically has an approximately twentyyear window it guides future development well into the future until it is updated and the actions it supports will have long-lasting and permanent affects. One of the most basic reasons to update a general plan is to ensure that the different elements work together and are not contradictory. In this case however, the consultant’s one size fits all recommendations would have totally ignored and essentially been at odds with, the Mobility (formerly Circulation) and Environment and Sustainability (formerly Conservation) Elements, that deal with traffic and water.

To its credit, the Council was able to see beyond the limited options and tunnel vision offered by the consultants, and suggest a more creative and site-specific way to deal with the issues of development on Site C and the two very different parcels involved. One that acknowledged that the entire site identified by the consultants was not appropriate for high-density development. The Council suggested using a lot line adjustment to increase the amount of relatively flat developable land within a single parcel. By not rezoning the entire steep hillside parcel for high-density development, they reduced the potential for unintended collateral damage, including increased traffic congestion and water use, caused by producing excessive market rate housing that was not needed to achieve affordable housing goals.

Members of the public who applauded the Council’s enlightened direction are eager to see it incorporated in the document to be reviewed by the Council on February 13th.

Thanks to the City Council for taking the time to listen to public concerns.

Lansing Duncan
848
FW: Solvang Housing Element
Brad Vidro <[email protected]>
Wed 2/8/2023 8:22 AM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>;Planning Consultant <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]>
From: Paul Matthies <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:10 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Subject: Solvang Housing Element
Dear Mayor Infanti and Council Members Thank you for your work on producing a Housing Element that will meet our need for affordable housing without unnecessarily compromising Solvang's future. Many r Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend
Dear Mayor Infanti and Council Members
Thank you for your work on producing a Housing Element that will meet our need for affordable housing without unnecessarily compromising Solvang's future.

Many residents have voiced their concerns about and opposition to the Consultant's original proposal to include the 4.48 ac. steep parcel as part of Site C, to be rezoned for high-density development, including 56 units of unneeded higher-income housing.

You, Solvang's Planning Staff, and the Consultant have recognized that this parcel is just too costly to develop needed affordable housing.

Any development at all on this 4.48 ac parcel will have to face steep terrain, soil erosion, soil removal and compaction needs, water run-off and flood control, parking, access, and traffic congestion, as well as the destruction of view sheds, the Santa Inez Mission Aqueduct and neighborhood character. It certainly should not be rezoned to build extra, and unneeded moderate and above moderate-income housing.

Thankfully, at your last meeting, Council expressed support for a solution proposed by Councilman Brown. This solution would include a lot line adjustment to join a small flatter portion of the 4.48 acres with the flat 1 ac. parcel.

This combined parcel would then be rezoned for 20 units per acre and, according to the scenario described by the Consultant, could support close to 40 units. The majority of these would be low and very low-income units, and RHNA REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MET. The remaining steeper part of the 4.48 acres would not need to be rezoned.

Council's proposed solution would reduce or eliminate many of the problems of high-density rezoning of the entire Site C. I strongly urge you to direct staff and the Consultant to make it part of the final Housing Element to be sent to the State.

Thank you.

Paul and Suzi Matthiies
682 Hillside Drive
849
Allow sender | Block sender
Housing Element Letter to include in Council Packet
Stephen Martin <[email protected]>
Wed 2/8/2023 11:02 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mayor Infanti and Council Members
Thank you for your work on producing a Housing Element that will meet our need for affordable housing without unnecessarily compromising Solvang's future.

Many residents have voiced their concerns about and opposition to the Consultant's original proposal to include
the 4.48 ac. steep parcel as part of Site C, to be rezoned for high density development, including 56 units of unneeded higher income housing.

You, Solvang's Planning Staff and the Consultant have recognized that this parcel is just too costly to develop needed affordable housing.

Any development at all on this 4.48 ac parcel will have to face steep terrain, soil erosion, soil removal and compaction needs, water run-off and flood control, parking, access and traffic congestion, as well as the destruction of view sheds, the Santa Inez Mission Aqueduct and neighborhood character. It certainly should not be rezoned to build extra, and unneeded moderate and above moderate income housing.

Thankfully, at your last meeting, Council expressed support for a solution proposed by Councilman Brown. This solution would include a lot line adjustment to join a small flatter portion of the 4.48 acres with the flat 1 ac. parcel. This combined parcel would then be rezoned for 20 units per acre and, according to the scenario described by the Consultant, could support close to 40 units. The majority of these would be low and very low income units, and RHNA REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MET. The remaining steeper part of the 4.48 acres would not need to be rezoned.

Council's proposed solution would reduce or eliminate many of the problems of high density rezoning of the entire Site C. I strongly urge you to direct staff and the Consultant to make it part of the final Housing Element to be sent to the State.

Thank you.

Stephen C. Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang CA 93463
850

DRAFT HOUSING

ELEMENT OF THE

GENERAL PLAN
February 13, 2023
851
DRAFT

HOUSING

ELEMENT OF

THE GENERAL
PLAN

PROJECT
STATUS
o 30-Day Public review Period Ended on January 16th
o City Council Briefing on January 23rd
o New City Council Members introduced to project team.
o Consultant discussed in detail the Housing Element process and City’s constraints
o Range of Comments Received primarily focused on Site C o Consultant has made changes and responded to
Comments
o Appendix C of Housing Element
o Attachment A of Council Staff Report
o Targeting February 15th for Submittal of Draft
Housing Element to HCD
852

PRIMARY CHANGES & RESPONSE TO

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Previous Public Comment DRAFT Revised DRAFT
853

NET RESULTS
Still Meeting RHNA Requirements
Previous Public Comment DRAFT Revised DRAFT
+140
107
355
127% 181% 165%
854

DISCUSSION OF

POTENTIAL LOT
LINE

ADJUSTMENT

FOR SITE C
Lot Line Adjustment and Extents were not specifically
reviewed as part of the DRAFT Housing Element
oSpecifics of Potential LLA are Unknown
o Location
o Soil Conditions
o Cultural/Archeological Resources
o Hydrology
oSite C will be fully analyzed as part of the Upcoming General Plan EIR
o Determine the appropriate location of any proposed lot line adjustment from the current lot configuration
o Avoid concerns discovered in the EIR Process
855
STAFF

RECOMENDATION
oThe City Council approve the Draft Housing Element of
the General Plan for submittal to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
oProvide Staff with Direction or Suggested Changes
prior to Submitting Draft to HCD.
oTarget Date of Submittal is February 15th
856
February 14, 2023
857
7 BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional materials to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the publication of the Agenda Packet for receive and file

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 13, 2023

6.a. Discussion and possible action to approve the Draft General Plan Housing Element for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development
Public Comment received
858
Allow sender | Block sender
Re: Rezoning adjacent to Mission Oaks
Diana Story <[email protected]>
Sun 2/12/2023 6:11 PM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

There might have been some confusion about the correct email for Sophia Checa [email protected] so I’m sending it again.

As it wasn’t returned I assume it went through.  But I’ll also send it to scheca in case the previous email was incorrect.  Sorry for the duplicates.

Diana Story
On Feb 10, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Diana Story <[email protected]> wrote:

Members of the City Council.

According to staff, the consultant's figures in the latest HE assumes a property line adjustment will be made!!! But without specific clear language the HE can still be read as proposing high density zoning at 20 units/acre for all of Site C, including all the steep hillside. This would give the owner, regardless of any oral promises he might make, the legal right to build at least 110 units. Without clarifying language, the HE will come back to haunt our neighborhood and the city with increased water use, traffic congestion, along with the destruction of the historic Mission Aqueduct and a designated Scenic Vista.

1.  I don’t trust assumptions.  The language should be clear and unambiguous.  No legal loopholes to slip through.

The lot line adjustment must be clearly spelled out in the Housing Element.

2.  The proposed rezoning to DR20 shall ONLY apply to the one-acre flat parcel and that the flatter part of the 4.48 ac. parcel joined to the one acre by property line adjustment.

3.  Owner’s reference to grading should be eliminated.

In addition:  The consultant dismissed the water and traffic issues.  I forget the exact words he used, but he was saying that water and traffic were not an issue or irrelevant.

In a previous letter I had stressed that traffic was a major issue.  A woman had been killed while legally crossing the road.

How many people have to die before traffic fatalities will be considered “An Issue” and who is going to take responsibility for them?
859
I realize that for many companies it is a question of money.  It’s cheeper to pay the relatives of the deceased than to fix the problem.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my suggestions.

Sincerely,
Diana Story
640 Hillside Drive
860
Allow sender | Block sender
Site C Response
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Sun 2/12/2023 5:45 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

February 12, 2023
Dear Mayor and City of Solvang Council Members:

I have attended the last two meetings regarding the matter of Site C at Alamo Pintado and Old Mission Road and Highway 246 to be developed as “affordable housing.” Many have pointed out the problems and difficulties in such a development at this Site (no matter how many acres are used).

I recently saw Site D on Alisal Rd. I wondered why you are even still considering Site C when this Site D is available. It offers to those who work hard to sustain so much of our economy and their families what so many who live in the Solvang/Santa Ynez area chose for themselves----nature, open space, scenic beauty, historical interest, and more importantly, the possibility of community. I saw a space with trees that would make a perfect small park. I saw folks walking dogs along the river, school bus and mass transit buses. There are easy access roads surrounding the acres. The area is flat with the high rise at one end with trees available. This space offers more than an area for a “housing project”. It offers an opportunity for not only homes to the residents but also an investment in community. Let’s build a model community that nourishes the well-being of those who will live here as well as provide a roof over their heads. We can maintain the commitment that Solvang/Santa Ynez has had in many other housing developments. I understand that Alisal Ranch is wanting to build a community there to serve those who need affordable options. I urge you, as you meet the state requirements for affordable housing, to provide those residents with all that we residents value and why we selected to be here and to remain.

Respectfully,
Felicia Carroll
Solvang, California
861
Allow sender | Block sender
Housing Element
Stephen Martin <[email protected]>
Sun 2/12/2023 3:32 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
2 attachments (992 KB)
Emailing Prop. Revisions to the EC Text for Site C.pdf; Screenshot_20230212-151750_Drive.jpg; Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Hi Sophia
Here are my remarks for Council Monday. My previous letter was written before the latest HE was available Thursday.

As my comments point out the HE needs specific clear language regarding Site C. It is at present unclear and appears to still propose blanket DR-20 rezoning for all of all Site C including all of the steep 4.48 parcel. I am enclosing SPECIFIC LANGUAGE changes we need to include to carry out Council's unanimous decision and directive to include in the HE a lot line adjustment, and describing the Site C acreage available for DR-20 rezoning and AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

We respectfully request Planning Staff to recommend this language be included in final Housing Element. Please let me know.

Also it is not clear why the consultant has reversed direction and eliminated ALL moderate housing from both Sites C and D. Doing this may well help developers invoke the 'builder's remedy." Could you ask the consultant to explain
Thank you Sophia!
Hon. Mayor and Council
Regarding Site C, We applaud your proposal to have a lot line adjustment to join a portion of the 4.48 parcel with the 1 acre parcel and rezone the new parcel for high density affordable housing.

The consultant says your proposal is workable and that
the Housing Element should state the amount of
additional flatter land that would be made available.

He estimates that the new parcel could accomodate 40
lower income units.
862
In the draft HE before you, although the consultant
assumed a lot line adjustment would be made and
projected 40 units, the HE remains vague and confusing, with no specific written statement or description of the lot line adjustment included. Indeed the language remains
proposing to rezone to DR-20 the entire Site C, including all of the steep 4.48 acre parcel.

As written, the owner can still use the HE to insist on high density rezoning that gives the legal right to build 110 units or more.

He may promise not to build more than 40 units and not
to build them on the steep hillside. But you know, and
any good legal counsel will tell you, that such oral
promises are UNENFORCEABLE. In the past we have seen
that when development begins, these promises are often
forgotten or ignored.The property may even be sold to a new owner who is only bound by written restrictions in
the deed or the land use law.

Finally it is important to have clear direction for future staff and Council members who were not involved in
drafting the Housing Element.

You have adopted a good solution to encourage
affordable housing while doing the least harm to
Solvang's character and limited resources. To make that solution meaningful, to give it teeth, you must revise and clarify the language of the HE. The straight forward and simple needed changes have been supplied to you  here
tonight. Please, we implore you to adopt them.

Thank you
Stephen C. Martin
698 Hillside Drive
Solvang CA 93463
863
Proposed Revisions to the Environmental Constraints Text for Site C Pg. H-101 of the Housing Needs Assessment, Page 266 of the Agenda Packet Site C is on a hill that that has a change in elevation of, at its extreme, approximately 64 feet over a distance of 969 feet from the top of the hill to the bottom, heading south. (To be retained)
The hill’s western, eastern, and southern slopes are all located within the northern parcel, creating a “U” shaped contour that will make grading the parcel especially difficult. (Revise as shown in bold)
The northern parcel has steep slopes that face east, west and south and an east - west cross section that looks like an inverted “U”. This topography will make grading the parcel especially difficult. (Revised Language) Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop. (To be retained) The owner of the site has expressed interest in developing the site for multifamily housing through either of the two following methods: grading the site to spread housing throughout the parcels or condensing units into flatter, lower elevation portions of the site. (Revise as shown in bold)
The owner of the site has expressed willingness to develop the site for multifamily housing by condensing the units on the flatter, lower elevation portions of the site. (Revised Language)
Much of this area is within the smaller corner parcel (139-530-001), but additional area at the southern base of the hill within the larger parcel (139- 530-002), is suitable for high density development. A Lot Line Adjustment will consolidate this lower developable area within a single parcel (139-530-001 Revised) that will be rezoned to DR-20 to accommodate the 40 affordable units proposed. (Additional clarifying language)
864
Allow sender | Block sender
Re: Site C of the Housing Development Update
Chantee Sea Sea <[email protected]>
Sun 2/12/2023 2:08 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Cc: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;Rodger Olds <[email protected]>;Planning Consultant <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]> Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Hello Sophia,
Unfortunately, I omitted “pedestrian” when referring to elderly with mobility and persons crossing that 4-way street, and I trust the City Council will see it now.

On Feb 12, 2023, at 2:04 PM, Sophia Checa <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you, Ms. Cloutier. This will be included as public comment for the Council's meeting tomorrow.

From: Chantee Sea Sea <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>; Sophia Checa <[email protected]> Subject: Site C of the Housing Development Update
February 12, 2023
Dear City of Solvang Council Members,
We all recognize the need for more affordable housing in our valley, but kindly consider this not to be at the expense of the Solvang residents' ability to enjoy the safety and tranquility of their homes and surrounding areas.

Please reconsider the traffic conditions enveloping these two lots; creating more problems at that intersection invites significant accidents, which could leave the city with liability. Both four-way stops (Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado/Viborg) are already a traffic catastrophe and increasingly becoming unsafe for the “pedestrians such as” elderly with mobility issues and persons to cross. Cars and trucks at high speeds blow through the Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Road four-way stop regularly; Police enforcement is minimal to none on Alamo Pintado, and our medical facilities and hospitals are undersized.

The congestion at Alamo Pintado/Old Mission/Highway 246 has become more impaired since the multi-unit rental development on Old Mission Road was constructed. The entrances to the shopping centers are narrow, parking is limited, and exiting around blind corners is increasingly dangerous. Delivery trucks block exits and need more area to load and unload safely without risk. There must be a viable plan to deal with the resulting congestion and greater risk of accidents.

The lumberyard project is under consideration, and the Samsun medical clinic is. Solvang's high water rates are already a hardship for many, with projected increases through 2025. We are in an ongoing and likely permanent drought; where will Solvang get this much-needed water?
The affordable housing above New Frontiers is partly an Airbnb, and there is no guarantee that this development could be any different. At the same time, it may not be vital to the property owner or developer, but our wildlife matters to many who live here. Please keep and preserve their open space. These many projected developments will significantly increase traffic, noise, and air quality, decreasing Solvang's desirability as the quant town that attracts the many visitors and residents here in the first place.

Considering all the above, Council's directive to include a lot line adjustment must be spelled out in the Housing Element.

The proposed rezoning to DR20 shall only apply to the one-acre flat parcel, and that flatter portion of the 4.48-acre parcel joined to the one-acre parcel by lot line adjustment. The balance of the 4.48 acres shall not be rezoned. The reference to the owner "grading the site to spread housing throughout the parcels" is no longer appropriate and should be eliminated. The Council has already voted to consolidate the affordable housing on the lower flatter part of the site.

Over-development and lack of open space will forever change Solvang; there is no going back. Please carefully consider this.

Respectfully,
Chantal Cloutier
Solvang, California.
865
February 11, 2023
Members of the Solvang City Council
C/O City Hall, City Clerk's Office
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
RE: HCD Review Draft Housing Element, February 2023
Dear Mayor and Solvang City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to communicate the consensus of several homeowners and residents on Old Mission Dr. are concerned about proposed zoning changes relative to the so called site C in the General Plan Housing update.

The need to update the General Plan Housing Element as well as the need to meet the State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandate, particularly for low income and very low-income housing, is understood.

Clearly there is a challenge finding parcels that can realistically be rezoned to support meeting the RHNA coupled with the requirement for DR20 zoning. In particular, site C which comprises two separate parcels (APN 139-530-002; and APN 139-530-001)of 1.00 acres and 4.48 acres each having very different topography is perplexing. The plan proposes combining both of these parcels into a single site C designator for zoning purposes and rezoning site C to DR20. In the same table the plan acknowledging that a realistic maximum is 40 units vs the maximum of 110 units implied by the DR20 zoning without identifying the significant topographical and building difficulty between the two parcels comprising site C.

It seems obvious that from a realistic development perspective these two parcels should be considered separately, as was originally done in the early plan update draft. The problem is that only the small parcel can be realistically developed to 20 units per acre but that parcel alone is inadequate to meet the State housing mandate. It appears that the parcels were combined into a conceptual site C to allow zoning both DR20 and defer the consequence of doing so in order to meet the housing mandate.

We are concerned that the zoning change for this entire site from 20-R-1 to DR-20 will promote a higher density of development than this property can reasonably support and will set up future city wide problems in the areas of traffic, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure needs to accommodate the potentially large number of units that a developer would be allowed under the DR-20 zoning.

A potential solution to this problem has previously been proposed to create a parcel that is both adequate and buildable to the DR20. The proposal is to combine the portion of the larger parcel that can be realistically be built to DR20 with the smaller lot to create and zone a single parcel that can be realistically be built to DR20. It would be appropriate to then zone the remaining portion of the larger parcel consistent with its realistic building density as well as to be consistent with the neighboring 48 acre parcel upon which Mission Oaks was built and which has very similar topographical, runoff and flood control, water use, parking and infrastructure challenges. 866
It is our understanding that Lot Line Adjustment unanimously passed on Jan. 23rd. The problem is that the consultant’s revisions do not fully incorporate the Council’s direction.

We respectfully request that the City reject rezoning of the entirety of site C as is and either zone the two parcels separately or better pursue the combining of the smaller parcel and the portion of the larger parcel realistically suitable for DR20 into a single parcel while applying a zoning that acknowledges the realistic density for the remaining portion of the larger parcel as we believe was the Councils decision on Jan 23rd. This approach should help minimize future challenges and costs resulting from consequences of the rezoning.

Specifically, we support the following language changes:

Proposed Revisions to the Environmental Constraints Text for Site C Pg. H-101 of the Housing Needs Assessment, Page 266 of the Agenda Packet

Site C is on a hill that that has a change in elevation of, at its extreme, approximately 64 feet over a distance of 969 feet from the top of the hill to the bottom, heading south. (RETAIN)

The hill’s western, eastern, and southern slopes are all located within the northern parcel, creating a “U” shaped contour that will make grading the parcel especially difficult. (REVISE as follows in bold print)

The northern parcel has steep slopes that face east, west and south and an east - west cross section that looks like an inverted “U”. This topography will make grading the parcel especially difficult.

Contrasting the difficulty of the northern parcel of the site, the southern parcel is flat and, therefore, significantly less costly to develop. (RETAIN)

The owner of the site has expressed interest in developing the site for multifamily housing through either of the two following methods: grading the site to spread housing throughout the parcels or condensing units into flatter, lower elevation portions of the site. (REVISE as follows in bold print)

The owner of the site has expressed willingness to develop the site for multifamily housing by condensing the units on the flatter, lower elevation portions of the site.

Much of this area is within the smaller corner parcel (139-530-001), but additional area at the southern base of the hill within the larger parcel (139-530-002), is suitable for high density development. A Lot Line Adjustment will consolidate this lower developable area within a single parcel (139-530-001 Revised) that will be rezoned to DR-20 to accommodate the 40 affordable units proposed.

Respectfully,
Craig Kent (on behalf of residents and residential property owners on Old Mission Dr.) 1901 Old Mission Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
867
Allow sender | Block sender
Comment for Tonight's Council Meeting
Mark Frank <[email protected]>
Mon 2/13/2023 8:41 AM
To: Public City Council Group <[email protected]>;City Clerk <[email protected]>;Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

VIA EMAIL:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
February 13, 2023
Subject: Comment on the Public Review Draft Housing Element Mayor Infanti and Councilmembers,
February 12, 2023
Dear City of Solvang Council Members,
We are in support of our fellow neighbors' letters and comments already sent to you. We hope that you can convince Sacramento to keep Solvang a small town. Sacramento needs to understand that the increased housing demands will diminish Solvang's small town charm. As the old saying goes, "one size does not fit all". Solvang does not have the infrastructure to handle additional gridlocked traffic to the area.

Borrowing the comments from one of my neighbor's well written comments below, We do hope that you side with the local people and not Sacramento.

We all recognize the need for more affordable housing in our valley, but kindly consider this not to be at the expense of the Solvang residents' ability to enjoy the safety and tranquility of their homes and surrounding areas.

Please reconsider the traffic conditions enveloping these two lots; creating more problems at that intersection invites significant accidents, which could leave the city with liability. Both four-way stops (Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Road and Alamo Pintado/Viborg) are already a traffic catastrophe and increasingly becoming unsafe for the elderly with mobility issues and persons to cross. Cars and trucks at high speeds blow through the Alamo Pintado/Old Mission Road four-way stop regularly; Police enforcement is minimal to none on Alamo Pintado, and our medical facilities and hospitals are undersized.

The congestion at Alamo Pintado/Old Mission/Highway 246 has become more impaired since the multi-unit rental development on Old Mission Road was constructed. The entrances to the shopping centers are narrow, parking is limited, and exiting around blind corners is increasingly dangerous.

Delivery trucks block exits and need more area to load and unload safely without risk. There must be a 868
viable plan to deal with the resulting congestion and greater risk of accidents.

The lumberyard project is under consideration, and the Samsun medical clinic is. Solvang's high water rates are already a hardship for many, with projected increases through 2025. We are in an ongoing and likely permanent drought; where will Solvang get this much-needed water?

The affordable housing above New Frontiers is partly an Airbnb, and there is no guarantee that this development could be any different. At the same time, it may not be vital to the property owner or developer, but our wildlife matters to many who live here. Please keep and preserve their open space.

These many projected developments will significantly increase traffic, noise, and air quality, decreasing Solvang's desirability as the quaint town that attracts the many visitors and residents here in the first place.

Considering all the above, Council's directive to include a lot line adjustment must be spelled out in the Housing Element. The proposed rezoning to DR20 shall only apply to the one-acre flat parcel, and that flatter portion of the 4.48-acre parcel joined to the one-acre parcel by lot line adjustment. The balance of the 4.48 acres shall not be rezoned. The reference to the owner "grading the site to spread housing throughout the parcels" is no longer appropriate and should be eliminated. The Council has already voted to consolidate the affordable housing on the lower flatter part of the site.

Over-development and lack of open space will forever change Solvang; there is no going back. Please carefully consider this.

Mark Frank & Myrna Livingston
653 Hillside Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
Please see attached photo
869
Allow sender | Block sender
Do we want over 60 more card turning onto the intersection from Old Mission Drive? Samuel Burke <[email protected]>
Mon 2/13/2023 4:55 PM
To: Sophia Checa <[email protected]>
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear City Counsel members,
Please consider these traffic issues outlined in the attachment! Regards
Samuel P Burke EE retired from UCSB Physics
870
871
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
872
873
Agenda Item: 6.b
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: Rodger A. Olds, Director of Public Works/City Engineer MEETING DATE: February 13, 2023
SUBJECT: 1. Approve an Emergency Construction Contract ECP23-01 with Hanley General Engineering, Inc. in the amount not to exceed of $390,442.44, and authorize the City Manager to execute any change orders if within a contingency amount of $150,000.

2. Approve an Emergency Agreement with MNS Engineers for construction oversight, permit compliance, FEMA Reporting, and post construction design in the amount not to exceed $147,678.

3. Approve a budget Amendment in the amount of $688,120.44.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Award a Construction Agreement with Hanly General Engineering, Inc. for the not to exceed amount of $390,442.44.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any change orders if within a contingency amount of $150,000.

3. Award Professional Services Agreement to MNS Engineers in the amount of $147,678 for construction oversight, permit compliance, FEMA Reporting, and post construction design.

4. Approve a budget Amendment in the amount of $688,120.44 for this emergency contract.

DISCUSSION:

The State of California experienced a major storm event on January 9, 2023. As a result of the impact to the storm, the County of Santa Barbara declared a state of emergency on January 9th, and the Federal Government approved Santa Barbara County’s inclusion in the Federal Major Disaster Declaration on January 17th.

In Solvang, storm flows in Alisal Creek damaged and washed out the slope that supports South Alisal Road. This partial washout has compromised the roadway and is in need of immediate repair. At risk is not only the roadway itself that was reconstructed in 2021, but also a high-pressure gas line that runs along the edge of the roadway, and a utility pole that supports power and communications. The roadway sits approximately 40-feet above the creek.

In order to immediately reduce the risk to the road, the City established a partial lane closure of the shoulder and part of the northbound lane that is closest to the creek. City staff then contacted one of the on-call engineering firms, MNS Engineering, and a local contractor Hanly General Engineering Corp., to help assess the situation and formulate a plan to access the creek and properly rebuild the slope.

In the interest of immediate public safety, City authorized the contractor to acquire a temporary traffic signal system, to allow the roadway to be reduced down to a single lane and shift traffic further away from the compromised slope. Additionally, the City mobilized the Street Tree contractor West Coast 874
Arborists to surgically remove the trees from on top of the slope which will reduce the weight on the top of the slope and eliminate any potential forces due to wind.

Staff, as directed by the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), reached out to the Army Corps of Engineers to assist with the environmental permitting to allow access to the creek. The Army Corps coordinated with several federal and state permitting agencies and provided an emergency permit to allow creek access on February 7. As part of the permit, there are requirements for environmental monitoring by an on-site biologist, and other post construction mitigations that will require planting to reestablish environmental conditions to a pre-event condition.

On February 8th, the Contractor Hanly General Engineering mobilized into the site and is currently working on the repairs.

The general scope of the project includes the following:

1. Traffic control on South Alisal Road (Completed/on-going)

2. Grade roadway from Alisal Road down into Alisal Creek

3. Furnish and install large rock slope protection (Rip-Rap)

4. Re-construct slope
An initial not-to-exceed proposal was provided to the City for this work. The price quote is $390,442.44.

Given the nature of this work, staff is asking for the approval of potential change orders up to $150,000 if necessary.

MNS Engineering has provided initial support and guidance for this project. Their scope includes:

1. Initial project assessment and coordination of permitting.

2. Environmental Monitoring - Biologist

3. Army Corps Permit compliance

4. Application to FEMA for All City Emergency Projects

5. Design of Mitigation Plan

6. Application to FEMA for Post Emergency repair/hardening MNS has provided a quote for the above-listed services in the amount of $150,000. This is a not-toexceed amount and will be billed based on the actual time and effort spent on the project.

FEMA EMERGENCY FUNDING
The project expenses are eligible to be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This will involve an application process and substantial tracking of all reporting related to the project. Furthermore, many of the other staff efforts and emergency repair projects are also eligible for FEMA reimbursement. The City has asked MNS Engineers to assist with the FEMA Application and reporting process. MNS does have staff experience with this type of reporting and will help the City greatly in recovering as much of the financial expenditure as possible.

PROCUREMENT
The emergency nature of this construction project does not allow for the typical design-bid-build project development process. The City’s Purchasing Policy refers to the California Public Contract Code Section 22050 for construction services in an emergency. This section allows the City to forego the typical notice of bid for competitive bidding with the approval of four-fifths of the City Council. Although the City Charter exempts the City from compliance with the Public Contract Code in many instances, Section 22050 provides as follows:
“In the case of an emergency, a public agency, pursuant to a four-fifths vote of its governing body, may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action 875
required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts.” In order to use this procedure, the Council is required to make a finding, based on substantial evidence set forth in the minutes of its meeting, that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency.

In addition, the procurement for professional services provided by MNS is to be provided through the City’s current on-call contract. The on-call contract was duly advertised and previously bid per the City’s Purchasing Policy.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council could direct staff to halt the current work and proceed with a standard design-bid-build project delivery. This alternative would take up to 6-months to design and receive new environmental permitting, and construction would not likely be underway until Fall of this year. Given the current compromised state of the roadway and the on-going rental expense of the temporary traffic control equipment, Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The following is a breakdown of the fiscal requirements to deliver the project:

ANTICIPATED PROJECT COSTS
Initial Traffic Control Efforts (3-Month Rental) $ 49,442.44 Creek and Roadway Slope Repair $ 341,000.00
MNS Construction Oversight Project Assistance $ 147,678.00 Total Project Costs $ 538,120.44
Construction Contingency $ 150,000.00
Total Anticipated project Costs $ 688,120.44
A budget adjustment of $688,120.44 is requested for the anticipated costs to deliver this emergency project.

ATTACHMENTS:

A – Construction Contract Hanly General Engineering
B – Professional Services Contract MNS Engineering
876

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
PROJECT: CITY OF SOLVANG – SOUTH ALISAL ROAD WASHOUT EMERGENCY REPAIRS ECP23-01 AMOUNT OF CONTRACT: $390,442.44
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 13th day of February by and between the City of Solvang hereinafter referred to as "Agency", and Hanly General Engineering, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor".

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, THE PARTIES DO HEREBY AGREE as follows:

ARTICLE I: GENERAL
For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by said Agency, said Contractor agrees with said Agency to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner all work required to repair the storm damage and washout of South Alisal Road as discussed in the field and described in the Contractor’s Proposal. All work will be in accordance with the Latest version of the Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Works Construction “Green Book”. Contractor further agreesto furnish at his own expense all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and services necessary therefore, except such materials, equipment and services as may be stipulated in said Specifications to be furnished by said Agency, and to do everything required by the Agreement and the said Specifications and Drawings, for the sum of $390,442.44, pursuant to the attached proposal received from Hanley General Engineering Corp. Bidding Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof.

ARTICLE II: PAYMENT
For furnishing all said labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services, furnishing and removing all plant, temporary structures, tools, and equipment, and doing everything required by this Agreement and the said Specifications and Drawings; for all loss and damages arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties which may arise during the prosecution of the work until its acceptance by said Agency, and for all risks of every description connected with the work; for all expenses resulting from the suspension or discontinuance of work, except as in the said Specifications are expressly stipulated to be borne by said Agency and for completing the work in accordance with the requirements of said Specifications and Drawings, said Agency will pay, and said Contractor shall receive, in full compensation there for, the price named in the above mentioned quantity .

ARTICLE III: CONSIDERATION
The Agency hereby employs said Contractor to perform the work according to the terms of this Agreement for the abovementioned price and agrees to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions stipulated in the said Specifications; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

ARTICLE IV: INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Contractor’s performance or Contractor’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Contractor’s performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a “construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraph A. To the fullest 877
extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Contractor’s performance or Contractor’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Contractor’s performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (c) Design Professional Services: In the event Contractor is a “design professional”, and the Scope of Services require Contractor to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8) Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert Contractor and expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Contractor shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor unless adequately corrected by Contractor. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Contractor’s performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Contractor under this paragraph exceed Contractor’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Contractor shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. (d) The duty to defend is a separate and distinct obligation from the Contractor’s duty to indemnify. The Contractor shall be obligated to defend, in all legal, equitable, administrative, or special proceedings, with counsel approved by the City of Solvang, the City of Solvang and its elected officials, officers, and employees, immediately upon submittal to the Contractor of the claim in any form or at any stage of an action or proceeding, whether or not liability is established. A determination of comparative active negligence or willful misconduct by an indemnified party does not relieve the Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend City of Solvang. The obligation to defend extends through final judgment, including exhaustion of any appeals. The defense obligation includes an obligation to provide independent defense counsel if Contractor asserts that liability is caused in whole or in part by the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnified party. If it is finally adjudicated that liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party, Contractor may submit a claim to the City of Solvang for reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and defense costs.
(e) The review, acceptance or approval of the Contractor’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Contractor’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance. (f) Liabilities subject to this Section include any claim of discrimination or harassment, including but not limited to sexual harassment, arising from the conduct of the Contractor or any of the Contractor’s officers, employees, agents, licensees, or subcontractors. In the event of a discrimination or harassment complaint against any employee, agent, licensee or subcontractor of the Contractor or its subcontractors, the Contractor shall take immediate and appropriate action in response to such complaint, including, but not limited to termination or appropriate discipline of any responsible employee, agent, licensee or subcontractor.

ARTICLE V: WAGES
The payment of prevailing wages are required on this project. The general prevailing rates of per diem wages and general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in the locality in which the work is to be performed have been determined by the Agency. Said general prevailing rates of per diem wages are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The Contractor agrees that he, or any subcontractor under him, will pay not less than the foregoing specified prevailing rates of wages to all workmen employed in the execution of the Contract.

Any contractor who is awarded a public works project and intends to use a craft or classification not shown on the 878
general prevailing wage determinations, may be required to pay the wage rate of that craft or classification most closely related to it as shown in the general determinations effective at the time of the call for bids.

ARTICLE VI: HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
The Agency is a public entity in the State of California and is subject to the provisions of the Government Code and the Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this contract to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with by the Contractor.

ARTICLE VII: COMPONENTS OF AGREEMENT
The Contractor's Proposal, Insurance Requirements for Contractors, Labor Provisions, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (latest edition), are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this contract has been executed on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SOLVANG
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Dave Fleishman, City Attorney
Mark Infanti, Mayor
ATTEST:

Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
Hanley General Engineering Corp
Bernard J. Hanley,
879
HANLY GENERAL ENGINEERING CORP.
3191 Mission Drive
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
Phone: 805.688.3752 Fax: 805.688.7138
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.hanlyengineering.com
Lic#621427
DATE: 1/24/2023
ATTENTION: Mike Matthews
ADDRESS: 411 Second St Solvang CA 93463
PHONE: 805-688-5575 Ex. 229
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NAME: 2023-010 COS Alisal Ranch Course Road
Repairs – Emergency Work
JOB LOCATION: 1054 Alisal Rd, Solvang CA 93463
Preliminary Proposal # 2023-010
Description
Submitted cost estimate to provide labor, equipment, tools and materials required to complete the scope of work as described.

Please note the following Scope of Work: Road repairs caused by Jan 2023 Storms/ preliminary proposal Work Description Amount
** for mobilization/ set up / readiness for project/ 3 days of prep**

1. Set up and installation of signal system (includes 1st month of rental)/ channelizers – includes labor for flaggers and HGEC(for first day) $18,817.44

2. HGEC personnel and equipment on site for 3 days prep(setting k-rail on tapers) $9800.00

3. Rental and delivery of additional 20’ K rail(4each) if needed from Pacific Petroleum (at approx.. $100.00 per day/90 days) $ $9000.00

4. Rental of Type 1(10each) and Type 3(2each) barricades ($750 month at approx. 3 months) $2250.00

5. Create access road ( equipment/operated: 310SJ backhoe, 314 C Excavator, ZX245 Excavator*) $9575.00
*the ZX245 is rental and standby/payments will begin on Monday 1/30/2023*
TOTAL $49,442.44
Exclusions:
• Survey and Soils testing, Permits, Landscape Repair
Total $
Terms: Proposal is valid for 30 days.
49,442.44
ECP23-01
880
2 By: Bernard J. Hanly, Jr. Date: 1/5/2023
Customer Acceptance: Acceptance of this proposal by signature below.

ACCEPTED: Person Responsible: Date:

ECP23-01
881
HANLY GENERAL ENGINEERING CORP.
3191 Mission Drive
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
Phone: 805.688.3752 Fax: 805.688.7138
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.hanlyengineering.com
Lic#621427
DATE: 2/7/2023
ATTENTION: Roger Olds
ADDRESS: 411 Second St Solvang CA 93463
PHONE: 805-688-5575 Ex. 229
EMAIL: [email protected]
JOB NAME: 2023-012 COS Alisal Ranch Course Rock Work
JOB LOCATION: 1054 Alisal Rd, Solvang CA 93463
Proposal # 2023-012
Description
Submitted cost estimate to provide labor, equipment, tools and materials required to complete the scope of work as described.

Please note the following Scope of Work: Rock work at Alisal Ranch Course Work Description Amount

1. Rock – Delivered (Rip Rap Type)
a. 900 tons of Rip Rap @ $ 55.00 per ton $49,500.00
b. Trucking: 2 each End Dumps @ 3200.00 (10 days) $32,000.00

2. Equipment and Labor: Based on 20 working days
(Machinery is rated out at operated rates)
a. 320 Excavator - $3000.00 per day
b. Crew Truck and tools (2 trucks) $500.00 per day
c. 314 Excavator - $2000.00 per day
d. 257 Loader - $1600.00 per day
e. 2 Laborers - $1920 per day ($960 each per day prevailing wage rate) $180,400.00
Total for Rock Work
$261,900.00
DIRT IMPORT/EXTRA WORK – to import and install dirt

1. Importing dirt – approx. 500 yards -
$50,000.00

2. Installing (labor and equipment) $30,000.00
Total for extra dirt work $80,000.00
TOTAL $341,000.00
Exclusions:

ECP23-01
882
2 • Survey and Soils testing, Permits, Landscape Repair Total $
Terms: Proposal is valid for 30 days.

By: Bernard J. Hanly, Jr. Date: 2/7/2023
Customer Acceptance: Acceptance of this proposal by signature below.

ACCEPTED: Person Responsible: Date:

ECP23-01
883

CITY OF SOLVANG

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this 13th day of February, 2023 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF SOLVANG, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 1644 Oak Street, Solvang, CA 93463 (“City”) and MNS ENGINEERS, INC. a California Corporation with its principal place of business 201 Industrial Way, Suite A Buellton, CA 93427 (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement. The parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:

1.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.01 Term: This agreement will become effective on the date of execution set forth below, and will continue in effect until terminated as provided herein.

1.02 Services : Consultant shall perform the scope of work (tasks) described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the project schedule which is also set forth in Exhibit A.

Consultant shall determine the method, details and means of performing the abovereferenced services.

Consultant may, at their own expense, employ such assistants and subconsultants, as Consultant deems necessary to perform the services required of Consultant by this agreement.

However, Consultant may not assign this agreement to any other person or entity in the performance of required project-related services, and the City may not control, direct or supervise Consultant’s assistants or employees in the performance of those services.

1.03 Standard of Performance: Consultant’s services shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of Consultant’s profession currently practicing under similar conditions. Whenever the scope of work requires or permits approval by the City, it is understood to be approval solely for the purposes of conforming to the requirements of the scope of work and not acceptance of any professional or other responsibility for the work. Such approval does not relieve the Consultant of responsibility for complying with the standard of performance or laws, regulations, industry standards, or from liability for damages caused by negligent acts, errors, omissions, noncompliance with industry standards, or the willful misconduct of Consultant or its subcontractors. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this contract and all applicable federal, state and local laws. If Consultant is retained to perform services requiring a license, certification, registration or other similar requirement under California law, Consultant shall maintain that license, certification, registration or other similar requirement throughout the term of this Contract.

1.04 Compensation: In consideration for the services to be performed by Consultant, City agrees to pay Consultant monetary consideration for professional services in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A. The parties agree that total compensation for fees and costs for the services detailed in Exhibit A shall not exceed the sum of $147,678, unless and until this Agreement is amended as provided herein.
884

1.05 Billing/Payment Terms. All charges for Consultant’s services and authorized related reimbursable expenses shall be billed monthly, and all undisputed charges will be paid by City within 30 (thirty) days of receipt. The bills shall list all tasks under this Agreement, the task budget, project total budget, percentage completed for each task for that month, associated percentage billing against each task, and total billing for that month. In the event the Agreement is based on time & materials billing up to a not-to-exceed amount, the bill shall itemize by date all services and expenses provided during the invoice period (under this Agreement) including a brief description of the nature of work performed, the person or vendor performing them, the applicable billing rate, and the time expended. All Consultant service invoices must be approved by the City Manager prior to payment.

2.0 OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR

2.01 Contract Management and Service Performance: Consultant Principal shall serve as the project manager and will personally prepare, or direct and supervise the preparation of, all work product called for by this agreement. Consultant represents that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities to properly perform all services hereunder in a thorough, competent, timely, and professional manner and shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement, have in full force and affect all licenses required of it by law. Consultant agrees to devote the hours and the human resources necessary to timely perform the services set forth in this agreement in an efficient, professional, and effective manner.

2.02 Avoidance of Conflict of Interest.
(a) Consultant may represent, perform services for, and be employed by additional individuals or entities, in Consultant’s sole discretion, as long as the performance of these extracontractual services does not interfere with or present a conflict with City’s business or interfere with the timely performance and completion of Consultant’s services under this Agreement. (b) Consultant shall comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, the City’s Conflict of Interest Code (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). All officers, employees and/or agents of Consultant who will be working on behalf of the City pursuant to this Agreement may be required to file Statements of Economic Interest. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Consultant to notify the City of any staff changes relating to this Agreement.
(c) In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, all officers, employees and/or agents of the Consultant unless as indicated in Subsection (d), will be performing a very limited and closely supervised function, and therefore, unlikely to have a conflict of interest arise. No disclosures are required for any officers, employees, and/or agents of Consultant, except as indicated in Subsection (d). _____ (Initials).
(d) In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, Consultant will be performing a specialized or general service for the City, and there is substantial likelihood that the Consultant’s work product will be presented, either written or orally for the purpose of influencing a governmental decision. As a result, the following persons shall be subject to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

None

2.03 Tools and Instrumentalities: Consultant shall provide all tools and instrumentalities to perform the services under this agreement.
885

2.04 Workers’ Compensation and Other Employee Benefits: City and Consultant intend and agree that Consultant is an independent contractor of City and agree that Consultant and Consultant’s employees and agents have no right to Workers’ Compensation and other Citysponsored employee benefits. Consultant agrees to provide Workers’ Compensation and other employee benefits, where required by law, for Consultant’s employees and agents. Consultant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify City for any and all claims arising out of any claim for injury, disability, or death of Consultant and any of Consultant’s employees or agents.

2.05 Indemnification
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a “construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraph (a). To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope of Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs (a) or (b). To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims, damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of 886
this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. (d) Payment by City is not a condition precedent to enforcement of the indemnities in paragraph (a), (b), or (c). In the event of any dispute between Consultant and City, as to whether liability arises from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, or agents, Consultant will be obligated to pay for City’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the City as having been actively negligent, solely negligent or as having engaged in willful misconduct. Except as otherwise required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, Consultant will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation. The provisions of this Section 2.05 shall survive completion of Consultant’s services or the termination of this Agreement.

2.06 Insurance: Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and part of this agreement.

3.0 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY

3.01 Cooperation: City agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of Consultant necessary to the performance of Consultant’s duties under this agreement. City employees, agents and officers of the City agree to disclose all information relevant to this project to Consultant. Consultant shall be entitled to reasonably rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information furnished by City, provided that Consultant shall give City prompt written notice of any known defects in such information.

4.0 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

4.01 Termination Notice: Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, any party hereto may terminate this agreement, at any time, without cause, by giving at least 30 (thirty) days’ prior written notice to the other parties to this agreement.

4.02 Termination on Occurrence of Stated Events: This agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. Sale of the business of any party;
b. The end of the 30 (thirty) days as set forth in section 4.01; c. End of the contract to which Consultant’s services were necessary; or d. Assignment of this agreement by Consultant without the consent of City. e. Death of any party.

4.03 Termination by any Party for Default: Should any party default in the performance of this agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, the non-breaching party, at its option, may terminate this agreement, immediately, by giving written notice of termination to the breaching party.
887

4.04 Termination: This agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2023, unless earlier extended as set forth in this Section. The City, with the agreement of Consultant, is authorized to extend the term of this agreement beyond the termination date, as needed, under the same terms and conditions as set forth in this agreement. Any such extension shall be in writing and be an amendment to this agreement.

5.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

5.01 Additional Tasks as May Be Assigned by the City Manager: Prior to initiating any Consultant work on matters relating to the purposes of this Agreement, but outside the Scope of Services for this Agreement, it shall be the responsibility of Consultant to obtain written approval of the City Manager, prior to initiation of such tasks.

5.02 Time Schedule: Consultant is to begin work upon receipt and execution of City contract. Consultant agrees to engage its best efforts to adhere strictly to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

5.03 Work Outside Contract Scope: No payment for changed or additional work shall be made unless the changed or additional work has first been approved in writing by the City Manager and the parties have agreed upon the appropriate adjustment, if any, to the payment schedule and maximum payment amount for the changed or additional work. The Contract Manger may order changes or additions to the scope of work. Whether a change or addition to the scope of work is proposed by the Consultant or ordered by the City Manager, the parties shall in good faith negotiate an appropriate adjustment, if any, to the payment schedule and maximum payment for the changed or additional work. An approved change or addition, along with the payment adjustment, if any, will be effective upon an amendment to this contract executed by both parties. The amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this contract.

5.04 Confidentiality:
(a) Confidential Nature of Information. Consultant shall treat all information obtained from the City in the performance of this contract as confidential and proprietary to the City.

Consultant shall treat all records and work product prepared or maintained by Consultant in the performance of this contract as confidential.
(b) Limitation on use and disclosure. Consultant agrees that it will not use any information obtained as a consequence of the performance of work for any purpose other than fulfillment of Consultant’s scope of work. Consultant will not disclose any information prepared for the City, or obtained from the City or obtained as a consequence of the performance of work to any person other than the City, or its own employees, agents or subcontractors who have a need for the information for the performance of work under this contract unless such disclosure is specifically authorized in writing by the City. (c) Security plan. If requested by the City Manager, Consultant shall prepare a security plan to assure that information obtained from the City or as a consequence of the performance of work is not used for any unauthorized purpose or disclosed to unauthorized persons.

Consultant shall advise the City of any request for disclosure of information or of any actual or potential disclosure of information.
(d) Survival. Consultant’s obligations under this paragraph shall survive the termination of this contract.

6.0 MISCELLANEOUS
888

6.01 Notices: Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this agreement or by law to be served on or given to any party to this agreement shall be in writing and delivered or, in lieu of such personal service, when deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following address for each respective party:

PARTY ADDRESS
TO: CITY OF SOLVANG City of Solvang
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Attention: City Clerk
Copy to: Dave Fleishman
City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
847 Monterey Street, Suite 206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
TO CONSULTANT: MNS Engineers, Inc.

Jeff Edwards, Vice President
201 Industrial Way, Suite A
Buellton, CA 93427

6.02 Governing Law: This agreement and all matters relating to this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time, should any need for interpretation of this agreement or any decision or holding concerning this agreement arise.

6.03 Binding Effect: This agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as consent by City to any assignment of this agreement or any interest in the agreement.

6.04 Remedies: The remedies set forth in this agreement shall not be exclusive, but shall be cumulative with, and in addition to, all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or equity.

6.05 Due Authority: The parties hereby represent that the individuals executing this agreement are expressly authorized to do so on and in behalf of the parties.

6.06 Ownership of Work Product: Upon delivery, the work product, including without limitation, all original reports, writings, recordings, drawings, files, and detailed calculations developed under this contract are the property of the City. Consultant agrees that all copyrights, which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this contract, shall be vested in the City and waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the City. City acknowledges that its use of the work product is limited to the purposes contemplated by the scope of work and that the Consultant makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.

6.07. Integration and Modification: This contract represents the entire understanding and agreement of the City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. This agreement correctly sets forth the obligations of the parties hereto to each other as of the date of this agreement. All agreements or representations respecting the subject matter of this agreement 889
not expressly set forth or referred to in this agreement are null and void. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder.

This contract may not be modified, amended, or altered except in writing signed by the City and Consultant.

6.08. Advice of Counsel: The parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms, and conditions of this contract, and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this contract is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the parties hereto. This contract shall not be construed in favor or against either party by reason of the extent to which each party participated in the drafting of the contract.

6.09. Independent Review: Each party hereto declares and represents that in entering this contract it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each party further declares and represents that this contract is being made without reliance upon any statement or representation not contained herein of any other party, or any representative, agent, or attorney of any other party.

6.10. Attorney Fees: In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to other such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney fees.

6.11 No waiver: The waiver of any breach by any party of any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of this agreement.

6.12. Assignment: This agreement is specifically not assignable by Consultant to any person or entity. Any assignment or attempt to assign by Consultant whether it be voluntary or involuntary, by operation of law or otherwise, is void and is a material breach of this agreement, giving rise to a right to terminate as set forth in Section 4.03.

6.13. Time for Performance: Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this agreement, should the performance of any act required by this agreement to be performed by either party be prevented or delayed by reason by any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, epidemics, pandemics, or any other cause, except financial inability, which is the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period of time equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused: provided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall exclude the prompt payment by either party as required by this agreement of the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.

6.14 Severability: Should any provision of this agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction or by a legislative or rulemaking act to be either invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, legislation or rule.

6.15. Construction: The parties agree that each has had an opportunity to have their counsel review this agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. The captions of the sections are for convenience and reference only, and are not intended to be construed to define or limit the provision to which they relate.
890

6.16. Amendments: Amendments to this agreement shall be in writing and shall be made only with the mutual written consent of all the parties to this agreement.

6.17. Signatures: The individuals executing this contract represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this contract on the following date.

CITY OF SOLVANG CONTRACTOR

MNS ENGINEERS INC
By: By:

Brad Vidro, Interim City Manager Jeff Edwards, Vice President Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Richards, Watson & Gershon
By:

Dave Fleishman, City Attorney
Date:

ATTEST:
_______________________________
Annamarie Porter, City Clerk
891

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK & FEE SCHEDULE
892

EXHIBIT B

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, Consultant will maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to City in excess of the limits and coverage required in this agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be available to City.

Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:

Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office “Commercial General Liability” policy form CG 00 01, or a City approved equivalent. Defense costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate.

Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant’s employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person.

Workers Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or disease.

Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the consultant and “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer’s duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be on or before the effective date of this agreement.

Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are admitted carriers in the state of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better and a minimum financial size VII.

General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant. Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by Consultant:

1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials, employees and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition prior to 1992, or a City approved equivalent. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise.

2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant’s employees, or agents, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.

3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or applicable to this agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement 893
or any other agreement relating to the City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.

4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.

5. Consultant’s general liability policy shall not contain any provision or definition that would serve to eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.

6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, reasonable modification and reasonable additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City’s protection without City’s prior written consent.

7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to City at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant, at City option.

8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to City of any cancellation of coverage by the carrier.

9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance or self insurance available to City.

10. Consultant agrees to require that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

11. If Consultant’s existing coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or selfinsured retention must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions. Consultant shall be responsible for paying any deductibles or self-insured retentions on its policies.

12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation proportional to the increased benefit to City.

13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this Agreement. 894

14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard.

15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City, or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City executes a written statement to that effect.

16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter from Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five days of the expiration of the coverages.

17. The provisions of any workers’ compensation or similar act will not limit the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents.

18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.

19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any other provision in this agreement and are intended by the parties here to be interpreted as such.

20. The requirements in this Section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impairs the provisions of this Section.

21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used between itself and its subconsultants reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements.

There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
895
ECP23-01
Contract to commence immediately upon execution and terminate on December 31, 2023

EXHIBIT A
896
February 8, 2023
City of Solvang
Attention: Rodger Olds, Public Works Director/City Engineer 411 Second Street
City of Solvang, CA 93463
SUBJECT: City of Solvang, Alisal Road Emergency Slope Repair Proposal Dear Mr. Olds,
Thank you for the opportunity for MNS Engineers (MNS) to provide a cost proposal to provide assessment and inspection services for the subject project. Please see our estimated scope of work and cost proposal below.

Project Understanding:

The City of Solvang (City) owned Alisal Road has experienced storm damage including eroded/failed slopes along Alisal Creek threatening the stability of the road. The road, which is a critical access route, has developed cracking due to the washed out creek bank. A high pressure gas line is also threatened along the road edge and slope. The project involves storm damage repair at Alisal Road to stabilize the Alisal Creek bank. The work will consist of placing rock slop protection (RSP) along the toe of the failed downhill slope to prevent further erosion and rebuilding the slope with imported soil. This repair method has been utilized and documented further downstream as well. During the work it will be determined if a full creek diversion will be necessary or if flow and volume at the time of work will allow for channeling the creek away from the work zone. This repair work is anticipated to take approximately 20 working days and will occur during February and March of 2023. The City will need full-time inspection services to track the Contractor’s time and materials in performing the repair work. The City is currently coordinating the necessary permits for this project.

Scope of Work:

Task 1 – Project Management Services
The MNS team met stakeholders for the project including representatives from Alisal Ranch Resort and utility companies, City officials, and contractors. MNS coordinated with the team to assess the damage done and provide recommended repairs. The meeting discussed scope and expectations of the project and established roles, responsibilities, and procedures. Rough ECP23-01
897
estimates and quantities were determined based on the assessment to utilize moving forward.

MNS Management will coordinate with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the various agencies associated by providing oversight for the duration of construction including permitting of the mitigation required on the repaired slope.

Task 2 – Office Assistance – Project Support
MNS will provide grant application staff to coordinate funding sources (i.e. FEMA) for the emergency work as well as keep a project log for proper documentation necessary to attain and report grant funding (i.e. FEMA).

Task 3 – Construction Support
Construction will be performed in two phases. Phase 1 is the emergency work necessary to restore the creek bank, slope, and road. Phase 2 is the mitigation and monitoring required after the emergency work is complete to meet agency permit requirements. MNS proposes to provide the construction inspector for both phases. The Construction Inspector will be onsite daily to track the Contractor’s time and materials during the storm repair work on Alisal Road. The inspector will ensure the work is performed in accordance with the City’s verbal and/or written direction and as outlined in the Task Order between the City and the Contractor. The Construction Inspector’s responsibilities will include:
• Perform daily inspection of the Contractor’s work
• Prepare daily field reports that are agreed to and signed by the Contractor • Prepare daily inspection reports
• Photo document work performed
Task 4 – As Built / Topographic Mapping
MNS will provide the necessary support to map the completed project in the as-built condition.

Task 5 – Environmental Services
The MNS subconsultant JBD Environmental Consulting will perform the necessary environmental monitoring, reporting and mitigation support for the duration of the contract including preconstruction, during construction, and post construction.

The following scope and cost have been prepared to meet the biological monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the non-discretionary Special Conditions from the Regional General Permit (RGP) Verification letter for the Alisal Road Emergency Embankment Repair Project (File No. SPL-2023-00110-AJS) and RGP Number 63 for Repair and Protection Activities in Emergency Situations.
898
Task 5.1 – Pre-construction Survey
The qualified biologist will conduct a pre-project survey for sensitive species with potential to occur in the action area (Completed).

Task 5.2 – Biological Monitoring
A qualified biologist will monitor construction in areas considered potentially suitable habitat for California red-legged frog (CRLF) and/or South-Central California Coast (SCCC) steelhead. The qualified monitor will have a high level of knowledge in steelhead and California red -legged frog ecology as well as extensive handling experience.

For this scope, fulltime monitoring is not expected to be required for the duration of the project; however, monitoring will be required during initiation of each phase of in-stream work (access ramp installation, surface water diversion, toe trench excavation and rock placement) to ensure that any individuals of SCCC steelhead and/or CRLF are avoided or allowed to move out of harm’s way. Project activities will be monitored daily to ensure that no CRLF are in the work area and daily clearance surveys will be conducted prior to the onset of activities each day to ensure that no CRLF moved into the area overnight.

Once heavy equipment is permanently removed from the channel, and work transitions up the bank, we assume biological monitoring will no longer be required.

Task 5.3.1 – Post Construction Site Visit
Once construction is complete, we will return to the site to document the post-construction conditions of the channel. Post construction photos will be taken and included with the summary report detailed below in Task 5.3.2.

Task 5.3.2 – Final Summary Report
Pursuant to General Condition 26 from the RGP and non-discretionary Special Condition 23, a written report of activities completed is due to the Corps within 45 days of project completion. The report will include all the requirements stipulated under General Condition 26 in addition to the following from non-discretionary Special Condition 23:
• An assessment of general effects of the proposed action on steelhead and critical habitat including the action's anticipated effects on steelhead-passage; • Detailed description of the dewatering and steelhead-relocation plan that was implemented (if applicable);
• Number of steelhead relocated (if any) and number of steelhead mortalities that occurred (if any);
• Photos of the action area before, during and after construction is complete; • Description of the number, size, and location of trees removed; • Description of the mitigation or restoration measures performed or proposed for postconstruction; and • Detailed description of any additional proposed follow-up monitoring of the affected area MNS will provide the Post-construction topography of excavated areas in the channel in Task 4 above.
899
Task 5.3.3 – Mitigation Plan
Pursuant to non-discretionary Special Condition 24, the Applicant is required to prepare and submit a mitigation plan within 60 days of completion of construction. Based on emails from Antal Szijj, it is our understanding this plan would be a more BMP-type restoration plan rather than “mitigation”. It is also our understanding that no compensatory mitigation rules which involve things like a real estate instrument for long-term protection (Restrictive covenant, conservation easement, etc.), financial assurances (performance bond), and other measures will be necessary. The scope and cost for this task is limited to development of the plan and does not include installation of restoration, mitigation, or BMP requirements other than the installation of willow cuttings into the rock.

Task 3.3.1 – Two Annual Monitoring Visits and Reports
The cost for this task includes two (2) annual monitoring visits and two (2) monitoring reports due to the Corps by May 15 annually. These reports will document the recovery of the restored areas.

Schedule and Fee:

MNS proposes to provide inspection services as outlined in the Scope of Work on a time and materials not-to-exceed basis. The estimated cost of services is shown in the attached Staffing Plan. Actual costs billed to the City will be on actual time spent; the budget will required prior written approval from the City if it exceeds the original total. Based upon our project understanding and the estimate amount of support hours needed, MNS estimates the total service fee for the duration of the project to be $147,678.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services on this project and continue working with the City of Solvang. Please feel free to contact me at 805-331-4848 or at [email protected] should you have any questions or would like to discuss the project and our qualifications further.

Sincerely,
MNS Engineers, Inc.

Jeff Edwards, Vice President
Government Services Division
Attachment: Cost Proposal
900
City of Solvang - Alisal Road Restoration
Cost Proposal
Summary
Principal In Charge
Senior Project
Manager
Office Adminstrator
Stormwater Lead
Senior Construction
Inspector
Supervising
Project Surveyor
Associate Surveyor
2 Person Survey
Crew
Biologist
Task Descriptions $290 $250 $135 $145 $162 $210 $150 $290 Sub Task 1. Project Management Services
Project Iniation 18 24 4 46 $11,760 $11,760FEMA Support (6 mnths) 8 48 56 $14,320 $14,320Mitigation Planting Design Oversight (Permit Mitigation/Slope Planting) 24 24 $6,000 $6,000 Task 2. Office Assistance - Project Support
Grant Application 1 2 8 11 $1,870 $1,870
Project Log (8hrs + 2hrs week x 5 weeks) 18 18 $2,430 $2,430 Task 3. Construciton Support
Construction Phase 1 (Emergency Restoration) (5 weeks) 4 48 40 200 292 $51,360 $51,360Construction Phase 2 (Mitigation) 1 40 8 80 129 $24,410 $24,410 Task 4. Survey Servcies
As Built / Topographic Mapping 1 16 8 25 $4,930 $4,930
Task 5. Environmental Services (Lump Sum)
Pre/Post Construction Services $30,598 $30,598
Total Staff Hours 32 186 30 48 280 1 16 8 Lump Sum
Total Staff Costs $9,280 $46,500 $4,050 $6,960 $45,360 $210 $2,400 $2,320 $30,598 $147,678
601
Hours $147,678 $147,678
MNS Resource Hours
MNS Resource Costs
Total Costs
901

SOUTH ALISAL ROAD
February 13, 2022

EMERGENCY CONTRACT
902

OVERALL STORM DAMAGE
 Major Storm Event January 9, 2023
 Damages
 Alamo Pintado Creek Bridge
 Fredensborg Canyon Minor Slide
 Hans Christian Anderson Park Damage
 Vets Hall – crawlspace flooding
 Alisal Lift Station Pumps
 City River Wells Access Road
 City Sewer Manholes
 South Alisal Road Creek Washout
903
Alamo Pintado Creek Bridge

STORM DAMAGE
904
Fredensborg Canyon Minor Slide
STORM DAMAGE Hans Christian Anderson Park Damage
905
Well 7 Access Road

STORM DAMAGE
City Sewer Manholes
906
South Alisal Road

STORM DAMAGE
907
South Alisal Road Project Status
February 14, 2023 7
908
February 14, 2023 8
 All repair projects can either be completed by City Staff or are under the Formal Bidding threshold, except the South Alisal Road repair.  Emergency Nature of the South Alisal Road repair allows for direct procurement as long as a 4/5 majority of Council approves the Contract. 909
February 14, 2023 9
 Approve Contract with MNS Engineers for construction oversight, Permit Compliance, and project reimbursement through FEMA in the amount of $147,678.00
 Approve Budget Amendment for $688,120.44
910
February 14, 2023 10
911
Agenda Item: 6.c
Solvang City Council STAFF REPORT
PREPARED BY: David Fleishman, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to consider amendments to Chapter 5-4 of the Solvang Municipal Code to authorize adult-use cannabis facilities.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review existing cannabis regulations under Chapter 5-4 of the municipal code and consider a requested expansion of existing restrictions to allow establishment of adult-use cannabis facilities DISCUSSION:

In 2018, the City Council passed Ordinance 18-332, establishing Chapter 5-4 of the municipal code regulating cannabis facilities within the City. A copy of Chapter 5-4 is attached. At that time, the Council limited the establishment of such facilities to only those providing medicinal cannabis. Section 5-4-1 of that ordinance states that, “This chapter does not apply to adult-use cannabis and adult-use cannabis products for adults twenty-one (21) years of age and over.” As such, adult-use cannabis facilities are not currently permitted within the City. In addition, under Chapter 5-4, the number and location of medical cannabis facilities was restricted.

Since the adoption of the ordinance, no medicinal cannabis facilities have opened within the City, although one permit has been issued to a medical cannabis entity. Recently, members of the City Council and the city manager received a request from the owner of Megan’s Organic Market, the permit holder for the medical cannabis facility, to consider a change to existing City regulations to allow the establishment of adult-use cannabis facilities. A copy of the request is attached.

In Ms. Souza’s email, she notes that the City has a tax on cannabis sales. This tax was adopted by a vote of the people in 2018, and it established the initial tax rate at 5% of gross receipts. This tax is more particularly detailed in Chapter 3-5 of the municipal code, and it can be raised to as high as 10% of gross receipts without returning to a vote of the people. The tax does not differentiate between medicinal cannabis facilities and adult-use cannabis facilities, and if Council were to modify existing regulations to authorize adult-use cannabis facilities, the tax would apply to such facilities.

At a recent meeting, Council requested that staff bring back an agenda item to allow the Council to discuss and consider the requested changes to the municipal code to allow adult-use cannabis facilities.

This agenda item provides Council the opportunity to discuss whether it wishes to make any changes to existing City regulations.

ALTERNATIVES:

There is no legal requirement that the City Council make changes to the municipal code. The City Council is free to review the existing regulations on cannabis facilities and make any changes it desires, or leave the current regulations in place.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact identified with the discussion of changes to the existing cannabis regulations.

There could be significant staff time incurred in revising the existing regulations should Council so direct 912
in an unknown amount, which would be dependent on the nature of the changes. In the event a cannabis facility opens in the City, there may be significant revenues from the voter-imposed tax under Chapter 3-5.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Solvang Municipal Code Chapter 5-4.

B. Email from Megan Souza to Brad Vidro dated January 4, 2023. 913
Chapter 4 CANNABIS REGULATIONS
5-4-1 Purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of this chapter is to comprehensively regulate cannabis within the city of Solvang, as authorized by state law. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-2 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

CANNABIS ACCESSORIES. Any equipment, products or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, smoking, vaporizing or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body.

CANNABIS AND MARIJUANA. All parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. It does not include “industrial hemp” as defined by section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. “Marijuana” and “cannabis” may be used interchangeably, but shall have the same meaning.

CANNABIS DISPENSARY. A facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where cannabis or cannabis products are made available for sale, whether for medical purposes or otherwise.

CANNABIS PRODUCTS. Cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.

COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY. The cultivation, harvesting, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, distribution, delivery or sale of cannabis or cannabis products.

CULTIVATION. Any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis, including the private cultivation of not more than six (6) living cannabis plants when in compliance with the restrictions set forth at Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a) and when located within a private residence or inside an accessory structure of a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure.

CULTIVATION SITE. Any facility or location where cannabis is planted, grown, harvested, dried, cured, graded, or trimmed, or that does all or any combination of those activities.

Attachment A
914
DELIVERY. The commercial transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer. “Delivery” also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the retailer, or independently licensed, that enables customers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed retailer of cannabis or cannabis products.

DISTRIBUTION. The procurement, sale and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between parties to a transaction.

MANUFACTURE. To compound, blend, extract, infuse or otherwise make or prepare a cannabis product.

NURSERY. A producer of clones, immature plants, seeds and other agricultural products used specifically for the planting, propagation, and cultivation of cannabis.

SELL, SALE AND TO SELL. Any transaction whereby, for any consideration, title to cannabis is transferred from one person to another, and includes the delivery of cannabis or cannabis products pursuant to an order placed for the purchase of same and soliciting or receiving an order for same.

SMOKE AND SMOKING. To inhale, exhale, burn, or carry any lighted or heated device or pipe, or any other lighted or heated cannabis or cannabis product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form. “Smoke” and “smoking” includes the use of an electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in a place.

TESTING SERVICE. A laboratory, facility or entity that offers or performs tests of cannabis or cannabis products, including the equipment provided by such laboratory, facility or entity. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3 Medical cannabis.

Medical cannabis dispensary allowed subject to the following regulations. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-1 Purpose and intent.

A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish a comprehensive system to control and regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products for patients with valid physician’s recommendations. This chapter does not apply to adult-use cannabis and adult-use cannabis products for adults twenty-one (21) years of age and over.

B. If medical cannabis dispensary, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, transportation, and delivery facilities were permitted to be established or if existing businesses were permitted to distribute, sell, cultivate, test, transport, or deliver medical cannabis, or manufacture medical cannabis products without appropriate regulation, such uses might be established in areas that would conflict with the requirements of the general plan, be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or the operation of such facilities may be in conflict with applicable state law and regulations. 915
The city council desires to enact reasonable regulations pertaining to medical cannabis dispensary, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, transportation, and delivery facilities to ensure that qualified patients and their primary caregivers are afforded safe and convenient access to medical cannabis, while at the same time ensuring that such uses do not conflict with the general plan, are not inconsistent with surrounding uses, and are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and the operation of such facilities is in compliance with applicable state law and regulations.

C. Medical cannabis facilities shall be permitted, upon application and approval of a regulatory permit in accordance with the criteria and procedures set forth in this chapter.

D. The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted and applied consistent with all applicable state laws and regulations. To the extent any provision of this chapter conflicts with or contradicts any applicable state law or regulation, or establishes a criteria, procedure, standard, requirement, or regulation that does not meet the minimum standards of any applicable state law or regulation, the requirements of the applicable state law or regulation shall take precedence. To the extent any provision of this chapter imposes a criteria, procedure, standard, requirement, or regulation that is more restrictive than that imposed by any applicable state law or regulation, the more restrictive provisions of this chapter shall take precedence, unless otherwise prohibited by applicable state law or regulation. The city manager or designee shall make interpretations and determinations under this subsection for consistency with all applicable state laws and regulations, subject to the appeal procedures of section 5-4-3-29 herein.

E. The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted and applied to avoid conflict with any other provision of this chapter. The city manager or designee shall make interpretations under this chapter to avoid any such conflict. If the city manager or designee is unable to make a good faith interpretation to avoid any such conflict, the city manager or designee shall make a determination as to which conflicting provision shall take precedence and shall report such determination to the city council. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-2 Medical cannabis facilities.

A. Facilities Permitted. Medical cannabis facilities permitted under this chapter include medical cannabis dispensary, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and transportation facilities that are owned and operated by bona fide nonprofit organizations such as a cooperative or a collective, subject to the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004, the California Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use issued in August 2008, and any other state laws pertaining to dispensing, cultivating, manufacturing, testing, distributing, transporting, or delivering medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.

Upon implementation of the licensing and regulatory scheme established by the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) of 2017, and the phasing out of the existing statewide model of cannabis cooperatives and collectives as provided for thereunder, medical cannabis facilities permitted under this chapter shall be as authorized by that Act and regulations issued by the state thereunder.

B. Licensing and Regulatory Requirements. Medical cannabis facilities permitted under this chapter shall comply with the licensing and regulatory requirements of the Medicinal and AdultUse Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) of 2017 as codified in 916
California Business and Professions Code section 26000 et seq., and as may be amended from time to time, and regulations issued by the state pursuant thereto.

C. State License. Medical cannabis facilities permitted under this chapter shall apply for and obtain the appropriate license issued by the state for the type of medical cannabis business for which a regulatory permit is issued under this chapter.

D. Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver. This chapter shall not apply to a qualified patient or primary caregiver who possesses, stores, or transports medical cannabis or medical cannabis products exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or for that of qualified patients of the primary caregiver, and who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to any other person or qualified patient.

E. Uses Not Applicable. This chapter shall not apply to the following uses.

1. A clinic licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 1;

2. A healthcare facility licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 2;

3. A facility licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 2;

4. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 3.01;

5. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 3.2;

6. A residential hospice; or

7. A home health agency licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code division 2, chapter 8, as long as such use complies with applicable law, including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq.

F. Definitions.

CANNABIS. Has the meaning set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 26001(f). “Medical cannabis” has the same meaning as set forth in Business and Professions Code section 26001(ai). “Marijuana” and “cannabis” may be used interchangeably, but have the same meaning.

CUSTOMER. A natural person twenty-one (21) years of age or over who possesses a physician’s recommendation for the use of medical cannabis or a primary caregiver.

MANUFACTURED MEDICAL CANNABIS. Raw cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the raw agricultural product has been transformed into a concentrate, an edible product, or a topical product.

MEDICAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION FACILITY. Any facility where medical cannabis is planted, grown, harvested, dried, cured, graded, or trimmed, or that does all or any combination of those activities, or any facility that produces only clones, immature plants, 917
seeds, and other agricultural products used specifically for the planting, propagation, and cultivation of medical cannabis. Cultivation as used in this chapter shall include both cultivation and nursery as those terms are defined in California Business and Professions Code section 26001(l) and (aj).

MEDICAL CANNABIS DELIVERY. The commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to a customer. Delivery also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the retailer.

MEDICAL CANNABIS DISPENSARY. A facility authorized under this chapter where medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, or devices for the use of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that delivers medical cannabis and medical cannabis products as part of a retail sale. As used in this chapter, the term “medical cannabis dispensary” also means “medical cannabis retailer” or “medical cannabis retail facility” and vice versa.

MEDICAL CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. A facility used to facilitate the procurement, sale, and transport of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products between medical cannabis facilities and to customers as allowed under this chapter.

MEDICAL CANNABIS MANUFACTURING FACILITY. A facility that produces, prepares, propagates, or compounds manufactured medical cannabis, as defined in this subsection, or medical cannabis products either directly or indirectly or by extraction methods, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis at a fixed location that packages or repackages medical cannabis or medical cannabis products or labels or relabels its container.

MEDICAL CANNABIS TESTING FACILITY. A facility that offers or performs tests of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.

MEDICAL CANNABIS TRANSPORTER. A person or entity that transports or transfers medical cannabis or medical cannabis products between medical cannabis facilities for the purposes of conducting commercial medical cannabis activity authorized pursuant to this chapter.

PHYSICIAN’S RECOMMENDATION. A recommendation by a physician and surgeon that a patient use cannabis provided in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), found at California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5.

PREMISES. The designated structure or structures and land specified in the regulatory permit application that is owned, leased, or otherwise held under the control of the applicant or permit holder where the commercial cannabis activity will be or is conducted.

The premises shall be a contiguous area and shall only be occupied by one permit holder.

PRIMARY CAREGIVER. Has the same meaning as in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7.

RETAIL SALE. The sale and delivery of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to customers. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
918
5-4-3-3 Definitions.

Words and phrases not specifically defined in this chapter shall have the meaning ascribed to them as defined in the following sources:

A. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996; and
B. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004; and
C. The California Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use issued in August, 2008; and D. The consolidated provisions of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and the Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) known as the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) of 2017 (enacted by SB 94). (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-4 City manager review and approval.

A. The issuance of a regulatory permit as required by this chapter shall be subject to the prior review and approval by the city manager.

B. In addition to the requirements set forth in this chapter, as a condition of issuance of a regulatory permit as required by this chapter, the city manager may impose such additional terms and conditions on the issuance of the regulatory permit and the operation of the facility as the city manager deems appropriate.

C. A development agreement and operations plan allowed by this chapter shall be subject to the review and approval of the city council prior to the issuance of a regulatory permit under this chapter.

D. If the city manager or designee revokes a regulatory permit as allowed by this chapter, as soon thereafter as is reasonable under the circumstances, the city council shall be informed of such revocation and the city council shall review and approve such revocation. If the city council does not approve the revocation, the city manager or designee shall reinstate such regulatory permit upon such additional terms and conditions as the city council deems appropriate. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-5 Regulatory permit required.

A. Prior to initiating operations and as a continuing requisite to operating a medical cannabis facility from a physical location within the city, the persons or legal representative of the persons wishing to operate a medical cannabis facility shall first obtain a regulatory permit from the city manager or designee under the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter.

B. Each regulatory permit shall expire one (1) year from its date of issuance. Renewal of regulatory permits shall be as provided for in section 5-4-3-12 herein. 919
C. Regulatory permits are not transferable and any attempt to assign or transfer such permits shall render the permit null and void.

D. The number of each type of medical cannabis facility permitted in the city may be limited or restricted by resolution of the city council.

E. Applications for the required regulatory permit may be submitted during those applications periods as may be designated from time to time by the city manager or designee.

Each application submitted and deemed complete by the city during the application period will be evaluated and processed in accordance with application regulations and procedures adopted pursuant to section 5-4-3-31 herein.

F. Except as provided for in subsection G of this section, the holder of a regulatory permit may apply for and be issued a regulatory permit for more than one (1) type of medical cannabis facility; provided the permitted premises are separate and distinct.

G. The holder of a regulatory permit for a testing facility shall not hold a regulatory permit for any other medical cannabis facility for which a regulatory permit is required under this chapter, shall not own or have ownership interest in such a facility, and shall not employ an individual who is also employed by any other permittee that does not hold a testing facility regulatory permit.

H. The legal representative of the regulatory permit applicant shall file an application for a regulatory permit with the city manager or designee upon forms provided by the city and shall pay an “application fee” and a “processing fee” as required by this chapter and as established by resolution adopted by the city council as amended from time to time. A separate application shall be made for each type of medical cannabis facility, i.e., dispensary, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, or distribution facility, for each license classification specified in California Business and Professions Code section 26050; and for each location at which a medical cannabis facility will operate. An application for a regulatory permit for each type of medical cannabis facility shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following information:

1. The legal name, and any other names, under which the facility will operate.

2. The address of the location and the on-site telephone number, if known, of the medical cannabis facility.

3. The following information for each owner (defined as any person having an economic interest in the medical cannabis facility and/or real property holding company upon which the medical cannabis business is operating), officer, director, and manager of the medical cannabis facility:
a. Complete legal name and any alias(es), address, and telephone number; b. Date and place of birth;
c. Copy of a valid state or federal government issued photo identification card or license;
d. If required, copy of the owner’s and manager’s medical cannabis identification card or copy of the attending physician’s recommendation for each owner and manager;
920
e. Applicant’s seller’s permit number or indication that the applicant is currently applying for a seller’s permit;
f. A list of all criminal convictions, other than infractions for traffic violations, the jurisdiction of the conviction(s) and the circumstances thereof; g. One (1) set of fingerprints in a form acceptable to the chief law enforcement officer;
h. A detailed explanation of the owner’s or manager’s involvement with any other cannabis facility, including, but not limited to, the name and address of the cannabis facility; the capacity in which the owner or manager is or was involved with the cannabis facility; whether the cannabis facility is or was the subject of any criminal investigation or prosecution, civil investigation, administrative action or civil lawsuit; whether the owner or manager or the cannabis facility with which the owner or manager is or was associated has ever been denied or is in the process of being denied registration, a permit, a license or any other authorization required to operate a cannabis facility in any other city, county or state; and whether the owner or manager or the cannabis facility with which the owner or manager is or was associated has ever had a registration, license, permit or any other authorization required to operate a cannabis facility in any other city, county or state, suspended or revoked, and the reasons therefor; and
i. A detailed explanation of the owner’s or manager’s involvement with any other retail business in the city of Solvang, including, but not limited to, the name and address of such business; the type of business; the capacity in which the owner or manager is or was involved with the business; whether the business is or was the subject of any criminal investigation or prosecution, civil investigation, administrative action or civil lawsuit; whether an owner or manager of the business with which the owner or manager is or was associated has ever been denied, or is in the process of being denied registration, a permit, a license or any other authorization required to operate a business requiring licensing through the state of California in any other city, county or state; and whether an owner or manager of the business with which the owner or manager is or was associated has ever had a registration, license, permit or any other authorization required to operate a business that requires a license in the state of California, or any other city, county or state, suspended or revoked, and the reasons therefor.

4. An operations plan which shall be in conformance with the requirements of this chapter and shall include, at a minimum:
a. A list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and responsibilities of each owner and manager of the facility.
b. The hours and days of operation for the facility.
c. For medical cannabis dispensary applications only, whether delivery service of medical cannabis to any location outside the medical cannabis facility will be provided and the extent of such service.
d. A site plan and floor plan of the facility denoting the layout of all areas of the medical cannabis facility, including, as applicable, storage/warehousing, cultivation, 921
nursery, reception/waiting, dispensing, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and all ancillary support spaces, and the relationship of the facility to adjacent properties and land uses.
e. A security plan, including lighting, alarms, fencing, and video cameras, to ensure the safety of persons, and to protect the premises from theft, vandalism, and fire. The security plan shall address both interior and exterior areas of the facility and its premises.
f. The medical cannabis cultivation and manufacturing procedures to be utilized at the facility, including, as applicable, a description of how chemicals and fertilizers will be stored, handled, and used; extraction and infusion methods; the transportation process; inventory procedures; track and trace program and procedures; quality control procedures; and testing procedures.
g. Procedures for identifying, managing, and disposing of contaminated, adulterated, deteriorated or excess medical cannabis product. h. Procedures for inventory control to prevent diversion of medical cannabis to nonmedical use, employee screening, storage of medical cannabis, personnel policies, and recordkeeping procedures.
i. An odor management plan detailing steps that will be taken to ensure that the odor of medical cannabis will not emanate beyond the exterior walls of the facility, including as necessary the installation and use of air purification systems and/or air scrubbers.
j. For medical cannabis distribution and transportation facilities and distributors and transporters only, procedures for transporting medical cannabis and medical cannabis products from cultivation and manufacturing facilities to the distribution center, quality assurance and inspection by the distributor, transportation to and from a medical cannabis testing facility, and distribution and transportation to a medical cannabis dispensary.
k. For medical cannabis testing facilities only, procedures for testing medical cannabis and medical cannabis products for concentration, pesticides, mold, other contaminants, and purity.
l. If the medical cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, or dispensary facility will include on-site testing facilities, describe proposed testing procedures and processes. m. Policies and procedures for adopting, monitoring, implementing, and enforcing all requirements of this chapter.

5. The name and address of the owner and lessor of the premises and a copy of the lease or other such proof of the legal right to occupy and use the premises and a statement from the owner or agent of the owner of the real property where the facility will be located demonstrating the landowner has acknowledged and consented to permit dispensary, cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, or transportation activities to be conducted on the property by the applicant.
922

6. The name and account number of all savings accounts, checking accounts, investment accounts and trusts associated with the operation of the facility.

7. Provide evidence that the proposed location is located beyond at least a one thousand (1,000) foot radius from a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth center that is in existence at the time the regulatory permit is issued.

8. Authorization for the city manager or designee to seek verification of the information contained within the application, including, but not limited to, a criminal history investigation by the chief of police with the California Department of Justice and any other law enforcement agencies.

9. Until such time as the licensing regulations promulgated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) are implemented and become operative, evidence that the organization operating the medical cannabis facility is organized as a bona fide nonprofit cooperative, affiliation, association, or collective of persons comprised exclusively and entirely of qualified patients and the primary caregivers of those patients in strict accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004, and the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines.

This subsection shall become inoperable after said state licensing regulations are implemented and become operative.

10. A statement in writing by the applicant that he or she certifies under penalty of perjury that all the information contained in the application is complete, true and accurate.

11. Any such additional and further information as is deemed necessary by the city manager or designee to administer this section or to show that the medical cannabis facility and its ownership and operation is in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-6 Background check.

All applicants for a regulatory permit for a medical cannabis facility, including any owner or manager responsible for the day-to-day operations and activities of the medical cannabis facility, and every employee or individual member of the medical cannabis facility who participates in the dispensing, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, distributing, testing, transporting, or delivery of medical cannabis or who participates in the daily operations of the medical cannabis facility shall be required to submit to a fingerprint-based criminal history records check conducted by the city law enforcement department. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-7 Grounds for denial.

A. The city manager or designee may reject an application upon making any of the following findings:

1. The applicant made one (1) or more false or misleading statements or omissions on the registration application or during the application process; 923

2. Until such time as the licensing regulations promulgated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) are implemented and become operative, the medical cannabis facility’s related cooperative or collective, if applicable, is not properly organized in strict compliance pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004, the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines and any other applicable law, rules and regulations. This subsection shall become inoperable after said state licensing regulations are implemented and become operative;

3. If applicable, the applicant is not a primary caregiver or qualified patient or the legal representative of the medical cannabis facility;

4. The applicant fails to meet the requirements of this chapter or any regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter;

5. The medical cannabis facility or its location is in violation of any building, zoning, health, safety, or other provision of this code, or of any state or local law which substantially affects the public health, welfare, safety, or morals, or the facility or its location is not permitted in the proposed area, or the issuing or continuation of a regulatory permit would be contrary to the public health, welfare, safety, or morals;

6. The applicant, or any of its officers, directors, owners, managers, or employees is under twenty-one (21) years of age;

7. The applicant, or any of its officers, directors, or owners, or any person who is managing or is otherwise responsible for the activities of the medical cannabis facility, or any employee who participates in the dispensing, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, delivery, transporting, distribution, or testing of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, or who participates in the daily operations of the medical cannabis facility, has been convicted of an offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made, except that if the city manager or designee determines that the applicant, owner, or permittee is otherwise suitable to be issued a regulatory permit, and granting the regulatory permit would not compromise public safety, the city manager or designee shall conduct a thorough review of the nature of the crime, conviction, circumstances, and evidence of rehabilitation of the applicant, owner, or permittee and shall evaluate the suitability of the applicant, owner, or permittee to be issued a regulatory permit based on the evidence found through the review. In determining which offenses are substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made, the city manager or designee shall include, but not be limited to, those offenses and convictions set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 26057(b)(4)(A) through (E), as said code may be amended from time to time. Except as provided in section 26057(b)(5) of said code, a prior conviction, where the sentence, including any term of probation, incarceration, or supervised release, is completed, for possession of, possession for sale, sale, manufacture, transportation, or cultivation of a controlled substance is not considered substantially related, and shall not be the sole ground for denial of a regulatory permit. The foregoing notwithstanding, conviction for any controlled substance felony subsequent to issuance of a regulatory permit shall, however, be grounds for revocation of a regulatory permit or denial of the renewal of a regulatory permit;
924

8. The applicant, or any of its officers, directors, owners, or managers, is a licensed physician making patient recommendations for medical cannabis;

9. The applicant, or any of its officers, directors, owners, or managers has been sanctioned by the city, the state of California, or any city or county for unauthorized cannabis activities or has had a registration, license, or regulatory permit revoked under this chapter in the previous three (3) years immediately preceding the date the application is filed with the city;

10. The applicant did not pay to the city the required application and processing fees as set forth in section 5-4-3-8 herein.

B. The city manager or designee may place reasonable conditions upon registration if grounds exist for denial of the registration and those grounds may be removed by the imposition of those conditions. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-8 Fees and charges.

A. Prior to operating in the city, the operator of each medical cannabis facility shall timely and fully pay all fees associated with the registration of that facility. The fees shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees and charges established by resolution of the city council, including but not limited to the following:

1. Application fee for accepting a registration application; due and payable in full at the time a registration application is submitted;

2. Processing fee for the cost to the city of processing a registration application and reviewing, investigating, and evaluating each application in accordance with the application regulations and procedures adopted pursuant to section 5-4-3-31 herein to determine eligibility for issuance of a regulatory permit; due and payable in full at the time a registration application is submitted;

3. Permit issuance fee for the cost to the city of preparing a development agreement, city council review and approval of the development agreement and the regulatory permit, and preparation and issuance of the regulatory permit as authorized by the city council, due and payable in full at the time the city issues a regulatory permit;

4. Annual operating fee for the cost to the city of operating a medical cannabis regulatory program; due and payable in full at the time the city issues a regulatory permit;

5. Amended registration fee for the cost to the city of reviewing amendments or changes to the registration form previously filed on behalf of the medical cannabis facility; due and payable in full at the time amendments or changes to a registration form are submitted to the city;

6. Regulatory permit renewal fee for the cost to the city of processing an application to renew a regulatory permit; due and payable in full at the time application is made to renew a regulatory permit; and
925

7. Any fees for inspection or investigation that are not included within the other fees associated with registration; due and payable in full upon request of the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-9 Development agreement.

Prior to operating in the city and as a condition of issuance of a regulatory permit, the operator of each medical cannabis facility may, but is not required, to enter into a development agreement with the city setting forth the terms and conditions under which the medical cannabis facility will operate that are in addition to the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to, public outreach and education, community service, payment of fees and other charges as mutually agreed, and such other terms and conditions that will protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-10 Cessation of operations.

In the event a medical cannabis facility that receives a regulatory permit ceases to operate for any reason, the city manager or designee shall consider the next qualified applicant on the waiting list, if such a waiting list has been established and, at the discretion of the city manager, provide an opportunity for new applicants to be considered for a permit. (Ord. 18- 332, 2018)
5-4-3-11 Change in location—Updated registration form.

A. Any time the dispensing, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, or transportation facility location specified in the regulatory permit is changed, the applicant shall re-register with the city manager. The process and the fees for re-registration shall be the same as the process and fees set forth for registration in sections 5-4-3-5 and 5-4-3-8 herein.

B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of any other change in the information provided in the registration form or any change in status of compliance with the provisions of this chapter, including any change in the medical cannabis facility’s ownership or management members, the applicant shall file an updated registration form with the city manager for review along with a registration amendment fee, as set forth in section 5-4-3-8 herein. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-12 Renewal or revocation of regulatory permit.

A. The renewal or revocation of a regulatory permit under this chapter shall be subject to the prior review and approval by the city manager or designee. Any action taken by the city manager or designee pursuant hereto may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the appeal procedures of section 5-4-3-29 herein.

B. No regulatory permit issued under this chapter may be renewed by the city manager or designee unless:
926

1. A new registration form has been filed with the city manager as set forth in section 5- 4-3-5 herein a minimum of sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of the regulatory permit;

2. The annual renewal registration fee, as set forth in section 5-4-3-8 herein, has been paid to the city; and

3. The medical cannabis facility and its owners and managers all meet the requirements of this chapter for registration.

C. As a condition of renewing a regulatory permit under this chapter, the city manager or designee may impose such additional terms and conditions on the renewal of the regulatory permit and the operation of the facility as the city manager or designee deems appropriate.

D. The city manager or designee may elect not to renew a regulatory permit issued under this chapter if:

1. The medical cannabis facility and its owners and managers have not complied at all times with all the requirements for registration as set forth in this chapter;

2. Any of the conditions or circumstances of section 5-4-3-7(A) or 5-4-3-28(D), singularly or in combination, have occurred; or

3. The city manager or designee is aware of any other facts or circumstances which indicate that renewal of the regulatory permit will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the city.

E. The city manager or designee may revoke a regulatory permit issued under this chapter, upon such notice as deemed appropriate by the city manager or designee, if:

1. The medical cannabis facility and its owners and managers have not complied at all times with all the requirements for registration as set forth in this chapter;

2. Any of the conditions or circumstances of section 5-4-3-7(A) or 5-4-3-28(D), singularly or in combination, have occurred; or

3. The city manager or designee is aware of any other facts or circumstances which indicate that continued operation of the medical cannabis facility will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-13 Limitations on city’s liability.

A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the city shall not assume any liability whatsoever, with respect to approving any regulatory permit pursuant to this chapter or the operation of any medical cannabis facility approved pursuant to this chapter.

B. As a condition of approval of a regulatory permit as provided in this chapter, the applicant or its legal representative shall:
927

1. Execute an agreement indemnifying the city from any claims, damages, injuries, or liabilities of any kind associated with the registration or operation of the medical cannabis facility or the prosecution of the medical cannabis facility or its owners, managers, directors, officers, employees, or its qualified patients or primary caregivers for violation of federal or state laws;

2. Maintain insurance in the amounts and of the types that are acceptable to the city manager or designee;

3. Name the city as an additionally insured on all city required insurance policies;

4. Agree to defend, at its sole expense, any action against the city, its agents, officers, and employees related to the approval of a regulatory permit; and

5. Agree to reimburse the city for any court costs and attorney fees that the city may be required to pay as a result of any legal challenge related to the city’s approval of a regulatory permit. The city may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the operator of its obligation hereunder. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-14 Additional terms and conditions.

Based on the information set forth in the application, the city manager or designee may impose reasonable terms and conditions on the proposed operations of the medical cannabis facility in addition to those specified in this chapter. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-15 Signage.

Except as provided in a development agreement approved by the city council there are no Sign Code exemptions allowed to a medical cannabis facility. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-16 Cultivation, dispensary, manufacturing, testing, distribution, and transportation locations.

A. A medical cannabis facility may be located only in a C-3 Zoning District.

B. A permitted medical cannabis facility shall operate at a single location only. At the discretion of the city manager or designee, multiple buildings on the same or adjacent site may be considered a single medical cannabis facility operating at a single location.

C. No medical cannabis facility shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades 1 through 12, day care center, or youth center that is in existence at the time the regulatory permit is first issued, measured in a straight line from the nearest property line of the school, day care center, or youth center to the closest property line of the lot on which the medical cannabis is located without regard to intervening structures. For purposes of this subsection, school, day care center, or youth center does not include any private school, home study program, day care center, or youth center in which such programs or services are primarily conducted in private homes. 928
D. No person under the age of twenty-one (21) shall be allowed in any medical cannabis facility or at its location.

E. All medical cannabis cultivation shall be conducted only in the interior of enclosed structures, facilities and buildings, and all cultivation operations including all cannabis plants at any stage of growth shall not be visible from the exterior of any structure, facility or building containing the cultivation of medical cannabis.

F. The identification of zoning districts in which medical cannabis facilities may be located as provided for in this section shall be interpreted and applied consistent with the requirements of and the allowed zoning districts specified in title 11 of this code. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-17 Dispensing of medical cannabis.

A. Medical cannabis shall be sold, transferred, dispensed, or otherwise distributed to customers only from a licensed retail premises which is a physical location from which commercial cannabis activities are conducted. No sales, transfers, dispensing, or distribution of any kind to the public or customers shall be from a cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, or testing facility; except as may otherwise be allowed under section 5-4-3-20 herein.

B. A medical cannabis dispensary or retail facility may be closed to the public. A dispensary or retailer may conduct sales exclusively by delivery.

C. Medical cannabis dispensaries or retailers shall sell, transfer, dispense, or otherwise distribute medical cannabis only to customers authorized to purchase, receive, or possess medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.

D. Medical cannabis sales, transfers, dispensing, or distribution to customers shall only occur inside the premises of the medical cannabis dispensary or retail facility. The foregoing notwithstanding, delivery services may be provided by the medical cannabis dispensary or retail facility as provided for in section 5-4-3-18 herein.

E. Until such time as state licenses are required pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 26050 et seq., no medical cannabis shall be provided to any persons other than the individual cooperative or collective members of the medical cannabis dispensary of which the qualified patient or primary caregiver is a member, or to such other individual or entity authorized to purchase, receive, or possess medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a medical cannabis dispensary or retail facility.

F. No medical cannabis provided to a primary caregiver may be provided by the primary caregiver to any person other than the primary caregiver’s qualified patient for whose care the primary caregiver is responsible.

G. No medical cannabis shall be provided to any customer more than once per day.

H. Until such time as state licenses are required pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 26050 et seq., no cooperative or collective shall allow more medical cannabis or plants per member, other than the amounts permitted pursuant to state law, to be stored, provided, or cultivated at the collective’s premises and/or location. This subsection 929
shall become inoperable after said state licensing regulations are implemented and become operative. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-18 Delivery of medical cannabis.

A. A medical cannabis dispensary or retailer may operate a delivery service subject to the requirements of California Business and Professions Code section 26090.

B. Medical cannabis deliveries to customers shall only be made by and from a statelicensed retailer.

C. Medical cannabis deliveries to customers shall only be during the normal operating hours of the medical cannabis dispensary or retailer during which it is open to customers.

D. A list of the names and cellular telephone contact numbers for all employees of a medical cannabis dispensary or retailer delivering medical cannabis or medical cannabis products shall be provided to the city law enforcement department. Such list shall at all times be kept current and up to date. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-19 Testing of medical cannabis.

A. A medical cannabis testing facility holding a regulatory permit issued under this chapter shall have adopted a standard operating procedure using methods consistent with general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration activities, including sampling and using verified methods.

B. A medical cannabis testing facility shall obtain and maintain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and hold a valid state-issued testing laboratory license.

C. A medical cannabis testing facility shall comply with the requirements and procedures set forth in California Business and Professions Code sections 26100 through 26106.

D. A medical cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, or dispensing facility may perform on-site testing for the purposes of quality assurance. Such on-site testing is not in lieu of the testing otherwise required under this section, any such on-site testing facility need not be licensed by the state, and on-site testing by the permittee does not exempt the permittee from the testing requirements of California Business and Professions Code sections 26100 through 26106. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-20 Distribution and transportation of medical
cannabis.

A. Medical cannabis and medical cannabis products shall be transported only between permitted medical cannabis facilities. The transportation of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products shall only be conducted by a person or entity holding a state-issued distribution license.
930
B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section and sections 5-4-3-17 and 5-4-3-18 herein, a medical cannabis distribution facility may make a retail sale or delivery to a customer who does not reside in the city, who does not have a residential or business address in the city, and where the transfer or delivery of medical cannabis or medical cannabis product is not made to an address or location within the city, without holding a dispensary regulatory permit issued under this chapter. Such facility shall, however, hold a state-issued retail or other license as required by state law. A distribution facility making such retail sale and/or delivery to a customer shall not be open to the public; shall not provide, make, or offer to provide or make any on-site sale, distribution, or delivery to a customer; shall not have any on-site public display of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products; shall not make any retail sale or delivery of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to a customer who resides in the city or who has a residential or business address in the city; and shall make no transfer or delivery to a customer of any medical cannabis or medical cannabis product to an address or location within the city.

C. A medical cannabis distribution facility making a retail sale or delivery to a customer as allowed pursuant to subsection B of this section shall be subject to the provisions of sections 5-4-3-17 and 5-4-3-18 herein as related to such retail sale or delivery to the extent such provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.

D. A medical cannabis distributor requires a regulatory permit for each physical location in the city where the distributor conducts business. A distributor providing transportation between permitted medical cannabis facilities or delivery to customers shall have a regulatory permit for each location where transportation equipment, while not in transport, or any equipment that is not currently transporting medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, permanently resides. If the medical cannabis distributor is not required to hold a regulatory permit from the city because it does not have such a physical location in the city, it shall hold a distribution permit or license issued by another jurisdiction.

E. All medical cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facilities permitted under this chapter shall send all medical cannabis and medical cannabis products to a state licensed distributor for quality assurance and inspection by the distributor and batch testing by a state licensed testing laboratory prior to distribution to a dispensary or the retail sale and delivery to a customer by a distributor as may be allowed under subsection B of this section.

F. A medical cannabis distributor shall comply with the electronic shipping manifest, quality assurance and inspection, and other requirements and procedures set forth in California Business and Professions Code sections 26050 through 26059, “Licensing,” 26070 through 26070.5, “Retailers and Distributors,” 26080, “Distribution and Transport,” and 26110, “Quality Assurance, Inspection, and Testing,” and other applicable state law and regulations.

G. A medical cannabis cultivation or manufacturing facility is not required to sell medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to a distributor and may directly contract for sale with a medical cannabis licensee authorized to sell medical cannabis and medical cannabis products to purchasers. The distributor performing services pursuant hereto may collect a fee from the licensee for the services provided, including, but not limited to, costs incurred for laboratory testing as well as applicable state or local taxes and fees. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-21 Packaging of medical cannabis.
931
A. Prior to delivery or sale at a medical cannabis dispensary or other authorized retailer, medical cannabis and medical cannabis products shall be packaged and labeled as required by California Business and Professions Code sections 26120 and 26121 and applicable requirements and regulations issued by the state pursuant thereto.

B. If edible medical cannabis products are present on site or offered for distribution or sale at a medical cannabis dispensary facility, the medical cannabis dispensary facility shall first secure any approval from the County of Santa Barbara Health Department required for handling food products.

C. Edible products distributed or sold by any medical cannabis facility shall not be produced, manufactured, stored, or packaged in private homes.

D. All edible medical cannabis products shall be individually wrapped at the original point of preparation. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-22 Medical cannabis facility operations.

A. No cooperative or collective operating a medical cannabis facility shall operate for profit, except as otherwise allowed by state law. Cash and in-kind contributions, reimbursements, and reasonable compensation provided by members towards the association’s actual expenses for the growth, cultivation, and provision of medical cannabis shall be allowed; provided, that they are in strict compliance with state law. All such cash and in-kind amounts and items shall be fully documented in accordance with section 5-4-3-24 herein. This subsection shall become inoperable after state licensing regulations promulgated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) are implemented and become operative.

B. Medical cannabis dispensary or retail facilities may only be open to customers between the hours of nine (9:00) a.m. and seven (7:00) p.m. and may operate as many as seven (7) days per week. Medical cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and dispensary facilities shall not otherwise be open to the public.

C. The sale, dispensing, or consumption of alcoholic beverages on or about the medical cannabis facility or in the parking area for the facility is prohibited.

D. Medical cannabis may not be inhaled, smoked, eaten, ingested, vaped, or otherwise used or consumed on the premises or in the parking areas of the premises.

E. The loitering by persons outside the facility, either on the premises or within one hundred (100) feet of the premises, is prohibited.

F. Customers purchasing or otherwise receiving medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a medical cannabis dispensary or medical cannabis distribution facility as allowed under this chapter shall sign an agreement with the facility that states that the person purchasing or otherwise receiving medical cannabis or medical cannabis products shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise distribute medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to any person other than a qualified patient, primary caregiver, or other individual or entity authorized to purchase, receive, or possess medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, and shall not use medical cannabis or medical cannabis products for other than medicinal purposes. 932
G. The medical cannabis dispensary shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise distribute medical cannabis to any person violating any provision of this chapter.

H. A copy of the regulatory permit issued by the city and any licenses or certifications issued by the state of California, and any conditions thereof, shall be posted on the premises in a prominent place, readily viewable by any member of the general public.

I. Consistent with the “Memorandum for all United States Attorneys,” issued by the U.S.

Department of Justice, from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General (known as the “Cole Memo”), the medical cannabis facility shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent:

1. The distribution of cannabis to minors;

2. Revenue from the sale or distribution of cannabis from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;

3. The diversion of cannabis from California to any other state;

4. State-authorized cannabis activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;

5. Violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of cannabis;

6. Drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with cannabis use;

7. Growing of cannabis on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by cannabis production on public lands; and

8. Preventing cannabis possession or use on federal property.

Any violation of this provision may result in the immediate suspension of any permit authorized under this chapter, and pending investigation and a hearing, may result in revocation of the permit at the election of the city manager or designee. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-23 Public health and safety.

A. Each medical cannabis facility shall operate in a manner such that the cultivation, manufacture, testing, distribution, dispensing, delivery, or transporting of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products does not adversely affect the health or safety of nearby properties through creation of mold, mildew, dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts.

B. The cultivation, manufacture, testing, distribution, dispensing, delivery, and transporting of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products shall not create hazards due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products, chemicals, fertilizers, or wastes. 933
C. The interior and exterior of the medical cannabis facility, including driveways, sidewalks, parking strips, fire access roads and streets on or adjacent to the premises shall be kept in a clean and safe condition.

D. Exterior lighting on the premises and location shall ensure the safety of the public and the members and employees of the facility while not disturbing surrounding residential or commercial areas. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-24 Records.

A. Medical cannabis facilities shall maintain accurate records of medical cannabis activity and an inventory control and reporting system that accurately documents the present location, amounts, and descriptions of all medical cannabis products throughout the distribution chain until purchase by or distribution to a customer. The records management and inventory control and reporting systems shall comply with the records management requirements of California Business and Professions Code sections 26160 through 26162.5 and the track and trace program requirements of California Business and Professions Code sections 26067 through 26069.9, and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

B. Medical cannabis facilities shall have an electronic point of sale system that produces historical transactional data for review by the city manager or designee for compliance and auditing purposes.

C. Each medical cannabis facility shall maintain at the premises all records and documents required by applicable state law or regulation. Each medical cannabis facility shall also maintain at the premises the following information and records:

1. The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the owner, landlord and/or lessee of the location;

2. The following information concerning each customer to whom medical cannabis is dispensed through a permitted medical cannabis dispensary or from a permitted medical cannabis distribution facility as allowed under this chapter:
a. Name, address, telephone number, and a confidential member number unique to that individual which is used solely for the log identified in subsection (C)(9) of this section;
b. A copy of a valid government issued photo identification card or license; and c. A copy of the qualified patient’s identification card or the attending physician’s recommendation for the patient;

3. The name, address, and telephone number of each primary caregiver to whom medical cannabis is dispensed through a permitted medical cannabis dispensary or from a permitted medical cannabis distribution facility as allowed under this chapter, along with a copy of the written documentation provided by each qualified patient designating the caregiver as his or her primary caregiver;
934

4. The name, business address, and telephone number of each attending physician who provided a physician’s recommendation to any qualified patient to whom medical cannabis is dispensed through a permitted medical cannabis dispensary or from a permitted medical cannabis distribution facility as allowed under this chapter;

5. The records of all qualified patients with a valid identification card and primary caregivers with a valid identification card may be maintained by the medical cannabis dispensary or medical cannabis distribution facility, as the case may be, using only the identification card number issued by the state pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq., in lieu of the information required by subsections (C)(2)(a through (C)(2)(c), (C)(3), and (C)(4) of this section;

6. Information identifying the names of patients, their medical conditions, or the names of their primary caregivers received and contained in records kept by the medical cannabis facility or medical cannabis distribution facility, as the case may be, or received by the city through its audit, inspection, and compliance enforcement activities authorized pursuant to this chapter, including any such information contained in a physician’s recommendation, are confidential and shall not be disclosed pursuant to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code sections 6250 through 6276.48, except as necessary for authorized employees of the city to perform official duties pursuant to this chapter or as otherwise required by law; and such information shall be maintained in accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 123100 et seq., and California Civil Code sections 56 through 56.37;

7. Up-to-date information for all savings accounts, checking accounts, investment accounts and trusts associated with the operation of the medical cannabis facility;

8. Complete and up-to-date records regarding the amount of medical cannabis cultivated, produced, manufactured, harvested, stored, distributed, delivered, packaged, or sold at each medical cannabis facility;

9. Until such time as state regulations are implemented under the track and trace program required by California Business and Professions Code Sections 26067 and 26068, complete and up-to-date records regarding medical cannabis transfers throughout the distribution chain from cultivation, to manufacturing, to testing, to distribution, and to its dispensing location, including the date and time of the transfer; the name and address of the cultivation and manufacturing facility, the name and address of the testing facility, and the name and address of the supplier or distributor if different from the cultivation or manufacturing facility; the amount, form, type, batch and lot number of cannabis transferred; the time of departure from the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, or transportation facility; the time of arrival at the distribution, testing, or dispensing location; the names of the employees transporting the product; and the name of the employee who received the product at the distribution, transportation, or dispensing location;

10. All receipts of the medical cannabis facility, including but not limited to all contributions and all expenditures incurred by the medical cannabis facility for the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing, dispensing, transportation, delivery, and sale of medical cannabis;

11. A copy of the annual audit reports required pursuant to section 5-4-3-25 herein; 935

12. Proof of completed registration with the city manager in conformance with this chapter;

13. Records demonstrating compliance with local, state, and federal rules and regulations regarding reporting and taxation of income received; and

14. All medical cannabis facilities shall perform an inventory on the first business day of each month and shall record the total quantity of each form of cannabis on the premises.

D. All records required by this section shall be maintained by the medical cannabis facility for a minimum period of seven (7) years and shall be made available to the city manager and any city official charged with enforcing the provisions of this chapter upon request. (Ord. 18- 332, 2018)
5-4-3-25 Audit.

No later than February 15th of every year, each medical cannabis facility shall file with the city manager an audit of its financial operations for the previous calendar year, completed and certified by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with generally accepted auditing and accounting principles. The audit shall include but not be limited to a discussion, analysis, and verification of each of the records required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter. The information contained in the audit shall be made available to the city manager in standard electronic format as designated by the city manager. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-26 Community relations.

A. Each medical cannabis facility shall provide the city manager or designee with the name, telephone number, and email address of an on-site community relations or staff person or other representative to whom the city can provide notice if there are operating problems associated with the medical cannabis facility or refer members of the public who may have any concerns or complaints regarding the operation of the medical cannabis facility. Each medical cannabis facility shall also provide the above information to all businesses and residences located within one hundred (100) feet of the medical cannabis facility.

B. During the first year of operation of a medical cannabis facility authorized under this chapter, the owner, manager, and community relations representative from each such medical cannabis facility shall attend a quarterly meeting with the city manager and/or designee to discuss costs, benefits and other community issues arising as a result of implementation of the medical cannabis regulatory permit program authorized by this chapter. After the first year of operation, the owner, manager, and community relations representative from each such medical cannabis facility shall meet with the city manager and/or designee when and as requested by the city manager or designee. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-3-27 Compliance.

A. All medical cannabis facilities shall pay any applicable sales, use, business or other tax, and all license, registration, or other fees pursuant to federal, state, and local law. 936
B. All medical cannabis facilities shall fully comply with all the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004, the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) of 2017, any subsequently enacted state law or regulatory, licensing, or certification requirement, all applicable provisions of this code, and any specific, additional operating procedures and measures as may be imposed as conditions of approval of the regulatory permit.

C. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any actions which violate state or local law with regard to the cultivation, transportation, manufacture, distribution, testing, provision, sale, transfer, disposition, or delivery of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-28 Inspections and enforcement.

A. The city manager, chief law enforcement official, or their designees shall have the right to enter all medical cannabis facilities from time to time unannounced during the facility’s hours of operation for the purpose of making reasonable inspections to observe and enforce compliance with this chapter, to inspect and copy records required to be maintained under this chapter, or to inspect, view, and copy recordings made by security cameras, all without requirement for a search warrant, subpoena, or court order.

B. Nothing in this chapter requires the disclosure of any private medical record or confidential information contained in such medical record.

C. Operation of a medical cannabis facility in non-compliance with any conditions of approval or the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a violation of this code and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of this code.

D. The city manager or designee may summarily suspend or revoke a medical cannabis regulatory permit, or disqualify an applicant from the registration process, or elect not to renew a regulatory permit if any of the following, singularly or in combination, occur:

1. The city manager or designee determines that the medical cannabis facility has failed to comply with any requirement of this chapter or any condition of approval or a circumstance or situation has been created that would have permitted the city manager or designee to deny the regulatory permit under section 5-4-3-7 or elect not to renew or revoke the regulatory permit under section 5-4-3-12;

2. The medical cannabis facility has conducted itself or is being conducted in a manner that creates or results in a public nuisance;

3. The medical cannabis facility ceased operations for more than ninety (90) calendar days, including during change of ownership proceedings;

4. The operator under whose name the regulatory permit is issued is changed without the new operator applying for and securing a regulatory permit under this chapter;

5. The medical cannabis facility relocates to a different location or premises; or 937

6. The medical cannabis facility fails to allow inspection and/or copying of the security recordings, the activity logs and records required under this chapter, or the premises by authorized city officials. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-29 Appeals.

Any decision regarding or pertaining to the regulatory permit process set forth in this chapter, or any action taken by the city manager or designee pursuant hereto, may be appealed to the city council. Such appeal shall be taken by filing with the city clerk, within ten (10) days after notice of the action or decision complained of has been issued, a written statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The city clerk shall transmit the written statement to the city council and at a regular meeting the council shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be mailed to the appellant. The decision of the city council on such appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-30 Violations.

A. Any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is unlawful and a public nuisance.

B. Any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor violation and upon conviction thereof any violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

C. In lieu of issuing a misdemeanor citation, the city may issue an administrative citation, and/or assess an administrative fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of this chapter.

D. A separate offense occurs for each day any violation of this chapter is continued and/or maintained.

E. The remedies provided herein are not to be construed as exclusive remedies, and in the event of violation, the city may pursue any proceedings or remedies otherwise provided by law. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-3-31 Implementation procedures.

A. The city manager or designee may develop additional written regulations governing the implementation of the medical cannabis facility regulatory permit process authorized by this chapter.

B. Regulations for dispensary, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, or distribution permits may be developed and approved separately or jointly by the city manager and city council. The city council may approve regulations for one (1) or several types of permits and the approval of regulations for each type of permit shall operate independently of and not be dependent on the approval of regulations for any other type of permit authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
938
5-4-4 Commercial cannabis activity prohibited.

Commercial cannabis activities are prohibited in the city. No person shall operate or allow to be operated a commercial cannabis activity in or upon any premises in the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-5 Cultivation prohibited.

Cultivation of cannabis is prohibited in the city, except for cultivation of up to six (6) living plants for personal use as otherwise permitted by California Health and Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(3) and when located within a private residence or inside an accessory structure of a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure on the grounds of a private residence. Outdoor cultivation of cannabis for personal use on the grounds of a private residence (e.g., in a garden area) is prohibited. No person shall operate or allow to be operated a cultivation site or nursery in or upon any premises in the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-6 Delivery restricted.

Delivery of cannabis or cannabis products is limited to the delivery for medical purposes to a qualified patient or primary caregiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-7 Distribution prohibited.

The distribution of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited in the city. Except for deliveries pursuant to section 5-4-6 of this chapter, no person shall conduct or allow to be conducted a distribution operation in or upon any premises in the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-8 Manufacture prohibited.

The manufacture of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited in the city. No person shall manufacture or allow the manufacturing of cannabis or cannabis products in or upon any premises in the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-9 Testing services prohibited.

The provision of testing services of cannabis or cannabis products is prohibited in the city. No person shall operate or allow testing services of cannabis or cannabis products in or upon any premises in the city. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-10 Smoking prohibited.
939
A. Smoking cannabis and ingesting cannabis products are subject to the regulations contained in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.3.

B. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the city of Solvang with the following exceptions:

1. This chapter does not regulate smoking in hotel and motel rooms rented to guests.

Smoking is regulated by state law in these locations;

2. This chapter does not regulate smoking in residences. Smoking may be regulated by state law in these locations. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-11 Public nuisance.

A. Except as permitted by this chapter, the operation of a cannabis dispensary, commercial cannabis activities, cultivation sites and nurseries, distribution, provision of testing services, and manufacturing of cannabis and cannabis products from any property, structure or building in the city is declared to be a public nuisance.

B. In addition to the penalties provided in section 5-4-14 of this chapter, any violation of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be abated by the city by administrative process, or by civil restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any manner provided by law for the abatement of a nuisance. All remedies herein are cumulative and nonexclusive.

C. Any person, including the city, who prevails in an action or proceeding for the abatement of a public nuisance as provided herein shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in any such action or proceeding. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-12 Confiscation of cannabis and cannabis products.

Any peace officer who issues a criminal citation under this chapter shall confiscate any cannabis or cannabis products and store them according to law, pending the conclusion of the criminal case. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-13 Suspension or revocation of business license.

No person or business holding a city business license and owning or operating a business in the city may use that business to operate a cannabis dispensary, conduct commercial cannabis activities, operate a cultivation site or nursery, distribute (except as provided in section 5-4-6 of this chapter), provide testing services or manufacture of cannabis and cannabis products without full compliance with this chapter. A violation of this chapter shall constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of a business license in accordance with the procedures set forth in this code. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-14 Penalties.
940
A. Failure to comply with this chapter is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both, provided that where the city attorney determines that such action would be in the interest of justice, he or she may specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense is an infraction.

B. Each person committing, causing, or maintaining a violation of this chapter, or failing to comply with the requirements set forth herein shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this chapter is committed, continued, maintained, or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
5-4-15 Exclusions.

A. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit individuals from cultivating not more than six (6) living cannabis plants and possessing the cannabis produced by the plants when in compliance with the restrictions set forth at Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a) and when located within a private residence or inside an accessory structure of a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure.

B. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit individuals twenty-one (21) years of age or older to possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons twenty-one (21) years of age or older without compensation, not more than twenty-eight and one-half (28.5) grams of cannabis and not in the form of concentrated cannabis, as set forth at Health and Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(1).

C. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit individuals twenty-one (21) years of age or older to possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain or give away to persons twenty-one (21) years of age or older without any compensation, not more than eight (8) grams of cannabis in the form of concentrated cannabis, including as contained in cannabis products, as set forth at Health and Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(2).

D. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit individuals twenty-one (21) years of age or older to possess, transport, purchase, obtain, use, manufacture, or give away cannabis accessories to persons twenty-one (21) years of age or older without compensation, as set forth at Health and Safety Code section 11362.1(a)(5).

E. Cannabis and cannabis products involved in any way with conduct deemed lawful by this section are not contraband and not subject to seizure. No conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search or arrest. (Ord. 18-332, 2018) 5-4-16 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by state or federal legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 18-332, 2018)
941
From: Megan Souza <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Brad Vidro <[email protected]>
Subject: Agendizing Discussion of Adult Use Cannabis Retail Sales Hello Brad :)
Do you have any availability this week for a call, Zoom, or in-person meeting to discuss adding an item to an upcoming City Council agenda?
My company, Megan's Organic Market, has been issued a permit to operate a medical dispensary in the City of Solvang at 1210 Mission Drive. Before we take next steps on our project, we would like to ask the Council to consider amending City code to allow for Adult Use cannabis retail sales. As it currently stands, Solvang cannabis businesses are only allowed to engage in Medical cannabis retail sales.

There is high demand for Adult Use cannabis retail in the City of Solvang. Currently, Solvang residents and visitors are purchasing Adult Use cannabis from delivery services based outside of the City that deliver to residences and hotels within city limits. Additionally, Solvang residents and visitors frequent nearby Adult Use storefronts in Santa Ynez, Lompoc, and Los Alamos. Significant tax revenue is being generated by all of these sales and none of that tax revenue is going to the City of Solvang.

In 2018, Solvang residents passed Measure F2018 which set a Cannabis Business Tax rate starting at 5% of Gross Receipts. If Council were to update City code to allow Solvang cannabis businesses to engage in Adult Use sales, this Cannabis Business Tax could generate hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for Solvang's General Fund just from our one storefront dispensary.

Tax revenue isn't the only reason why Solvang should allow Adult Use sales. I have many more convincing arguments beyond tax revenue generation. I would love to connect and discuss more.

Is it possible to get this item agendized this month or next month? --
Megan Souza
Pronouns She/Hers
Chief Executive Officer
p • 805.709.0662
e • [email protected]
w • MegansOrganicMarket.com
Attachment B
942

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional materials to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the publication of the Agenda Packet for receive and file

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 13, 2023

6.c Discussion and possible action to consider amendments to Chapter 5-4 of the Solvang Municipal Code to authorize adult-use cannabis facilities.

Public Comment received
943
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Gregory Millikan
To: City Clerk
Cc: Joyce Millikan
Subject: Solvang Cannabis Ordinance (2/13/23 Agenda Item 6.c.) Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:57:45 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Council,
We understand from the Staff Report (2/13/2023 Agenda Item 6.c.) that you’re considering this question because it was requested by the medical dispensary permit holder. For that reason, it is fair that you take up the question. This email is our response to that question.

Please do not amend the cannabis ordinance. The existing ordinance prevents public cannabis culture from eroding the nature and character of our city. The existing nature and character of our city are worth protecting and preserving.

We understand that legislation has been or is currently being proposed in Sacramento to allow such adult cannabis facilities to become night clubs and entertainment venues. That’s a future we want Solvang to avoid.

We believe that Solvang is flourishing and will continue to flourish in the future, for residents and visitors alike, without any cannabis clubs on Mission Avenue or anywhere else in the City.

No expenditure of City funds should be required to study this issue, or to draft or review proposed amendments, when no such amendment is in the best interests of the City.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Greg and Joyce Millikan
1227 Hans Park Trail, Solvang, CA 93463
P: (805) 697-7431
944
From: Brad Vidro
To: Annamarie Porter
Subject: FW: MOM Adult Use Cannabis Retail
Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:15:59 AM
Attachments: MOM Solvang Adult Use Cannabis.pdf
This was emailed to all of the Council members.

From: Megan Souza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:17 PM
To: Mark Infanti <[email protected]>; Claudia Orona <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Orona <[email protected]>; David Brown <[email protected]>; Brad Vidro <[email protected]>; Robert Clarke <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Hartman <[email protected]>; Nick Andre <[email protected]>; Evan Lash - Grand Avenue Real Estate <[email protected]> Subject: MOM Adult Use Cannabis Retail
Hello Councilmembers :) We look forward to the discussion of item 6C during tomorrow's City Council meeting: Discussion and possible action to consider amendments to Chapter 5-4 of the Solvang M Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender sophospsmartbannerend
Hello Councilmembers :)
We look forward to the discussion of item 6C during tomorrow's City Council meeting:

Discussion and possible action to consider amendments to Chapter 5-4 of the Solvang Municipal Code to authorize adult-use cannabis facilities.

Attached is a short presentation with a little more information about Megan's Organic Market, our dispensary project in Solvang, and the difference between Medical and Adult Use cannabis retail.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this issue, --
Megan Souza
Pronouns She/Hers
Chief Executive Officer
p • 805.709.0662
e • [email protected]
w • MegansOrganicMarket.com
945
Storefront Cannabis
Retailer
(MEDICAL)

MOM SO LLC
1210 Mission Drive
Solvang, CA 93463
946
Megan’s Organic Market is a unique &
approachable cannabis dispensary focused on
providing top-quality products, compassionate
service, and a wholesome experience. We are a
locally-owned, values-driven organization that
operates in environmentally-friendly and socially
philanthropic ways. From paid community service
hours and in-depth education, our staff become
advocates for positive change in their
neighborhoods who grow our mission every day to
advance wellbeing for people and our planet.

Making Cannabis Wholesome
Welcome to Megan’s
947
CA Retail Projects:

San Luis Obispo, Solvang, Goleta,
Los Angeles, Corona, Costa Mesa,
El Centro
*Locally headquartered on the Central Coast
Operational
Experience/
Footprint
A Retail Focused Company
948
Inside MOMs House
An Open Concept with a
transparent and welcoming
approach.

A more comfortable and
familiar experience for
customers.
949
Our values drive our every action. Above all, we’re committed to quality, to our customers, and to our community. From paid community service hours and in-depth education, our staff become advocates for positive change within the communities we serve. We are on a mission of Making Cannabis Wholesome.

Better Together
MOM Knows We Are Better Together
Highway Cleanup MOM’s Staff at a Creek Cleanup
950
Proud to be Best in Class
• 12 Years of Cannabis Experience
• A Market Leader
• High-Volume, Unique & Wholesome
951
What’s Changed Since We Applied in Solvang?
Significant Negative Market Changes, Declining Medical Card Use • Cannabis revenues have declined significantly
statewide due to an excess of cultivation, leading
to lower wholesale and consumer prices.
• This has changed the economics of cannabis
retail.
• Medical customers are abandoning medical
cards and instead opting to simply show a driver’s
license. They find little to no difference between
the two options and therefore avoid the hassle.

CDTFA Statewide Cannabis Excise Tax Revenue
952
Medical vs. Adult Use Statistics
2022 Revenue 2022 Transactions
Actual 2022 Data from MOM’s San Luis Obispo Storefront
• Despite over 90% of customers classified as “adult-use”, we find the majority are consuming for a medical purpose. 953
What Would Adding Adult-Use Mean?
No Change to Anything About the Store Except Who Can Enter • No difference in products
carried/sold.
• No change to the proposed store
layout, design, security or general
operations.
• Only change is who is eligible to
enter the premises and make a
purchase;
• And adult-use customers have
lower daily purchase limits.
• 18+ with Medical Card.
• 21+ with Government Issued ID.
• With more eligible customers, tax
revenue would be significantly
higher.
• Solvang could earn over
50x more tax revenue by
allowing adult-use compared
to only medical.

Pictured Above:

Seniors Visiting MOM
954
Current Situation
Pictured Above:

MOM’s Solvang Location
Adult-Use Cannabis Sales Already Occurring in Solvang with No Taxes to the City • Solvang residents and tourists are currently receiving adult-use cannabis deliveries within City limits per state law, and Solvang is not receiving any tax revenue.
• MOM can deliver adult-use cannabis in Solvang today from one of our other stores, however we would not be allowed to use the future Solvang store as a hub without adult-use allowed. • Adult-use customers who want the better service, selection and education that is typically found in a storefront, are visiting stores in Lompoc, Santa Ynez and soon Los Alamos instead of generating taxes in Solvang.
955
Request
Megan’s Organic Market respectfully requests that the Solvang City Council:

Amend Chapter 5-4 of the Solvang
Municipal Code to authorize currently
permitted Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
to serve adult-use customers.
956
[email protected]
957

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6.d
Meeting Date: February 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Discussion to receive 2022 Julefest Overview
PREPARED BY: Cheryl Shallanberger, Marketing Manager
DISCUSSION:

The City of Solvang produced the Julefest celebration in-house this year, as directed by the City Council. Outside consultants and organizations were tasked with delivering the events and marketing in previous years. With the creation of the Marketing Manager position, the City was allowed to customize the six weeks of holiday enjoyment to meet the expectations and desires of residents and visitors, expanding the variety of experiences while minimizing expenditures.

The Tourism Advisory Committee, in their August meeting, determined a sub-committee should be created to provide input on Julefest activities. In September, the Marketing Manager was hired and, immediately after that, held weekly meetings with the sub-committee.

For the Julefest activities, the sub-committee prioritized an automated light and music show, a treelighting ceremony, a Julefest parade, a Santa, and live entertainment, among other recommendations.

Having received their direction, the Marketing Manager began to source services and vendors for all the activities and balanced the budget.

For the automated light and music show, two proposals were received. In collaboration with the City’s Maintenance and Public Works teams, the companies were vetted, and one was selected. The hired company offered a crew member to be present in the park every day to handle any glitches that arose.

Volunteers assisted in the assemblement of an hour and half Tree-Lighting Ceremony involving musical and dancing performers. Due to weather concerns, last-minute enforcements were added to ensure lights would still work during rain. The Marketing Manager secured local coverage that the event would take place rain or shine.

Proceeding the tree-lighting ceremony was the annual Julefest Parade. There was a high number of parade participants, with around 45 floats and groups. Both events attracted large crowds, even with gray skies.

The Marketing Manager contracted a photographer to capture some of the Julefest activities and get ever-green lifestyle images to build a photo library for City-wide use. This involved coordinating models and talent and scheduling with local businesses.

Additionally, two Santas were hired to fulfill 6 scheduled time slots for ‘Free Photos with Santa in the Park.’
During the entire six weeks, the Marketing Manager scheduled live entertainment, such SY Jazz Band and Central Coast Harmony Chorus, to perform throughout and around Solvang Park.

As requested by the TAC, the Marketing Manager secured additional holiday décor to be visible during the day. The decor included; holiday sprays on the streetlight poles, Santa’s Village for a backdrop for photos, and Nisser cutouts scattered around town.
958
Julefest received a large amount of media attention with 24 Media Placements, 18 national mentions, and a total of 8.24 Billion in reach.

Due to all these efforts, the City of Solvang saw an increase in visitors for December. The Solvang Visitor Center reported a 28.6% increase from the previous year, with 13,881 visitors. The busiest day was December 26, 2022, with 1,024 in the center.

ALTERNATIVES:

Provide feedback to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$96,531.90 was used of the $100,000 Julefest budget for events.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Julefest Overview
B. Julefest 2022 Budget
959
Nightly Light and Music Show
● Goal: Important to offer entertainment every night of the week ● November 26 - Jan 6th
● Many inquiries prior to the start, asking about decorations being up after Thanksgiving
● Consensus to repeat next year with enhancements (more colored lights, themed nights, etc)
Other events that took place:
● Tree Lighting Ceremony
● Parade
● Nisser Adventure
○ 1800 participants
● Photos with Santa
● Added decor (Holiday Sprays on Street lights, Nisser cutouts) ● Live Entertainment
○ (SY Jazz Band, Central Coast Harmony Chorus)
Julefest Overview
2022
Attachment A
960
Larger opportunities for 2023
Candlelight Tours
● Managed by the Visitor Center, the tours sold out in a short amount of time.
● Researching ways to offer more tours
Night Marketplace
● Due to budget, only one Night Marketplace was held
● Vendors were satisfied and could look at expanding
Other:
● Julefest planning started in September and created a
short turnaround time.
● Adding additional family/kid activities (Woven heart
ornament making, etc)
● Suggestion of a New Year’s Eve event
Julefest Overview
2022
961
Creatives
Julefest Overview
2022
962
Public Relations Overview
● Total of 24 Media Placements
● 8.24 Billion Reach
● 18 National Mentions
Julefest Overview
2022
963
Public Relations Overview
Local ‘Rain or Shine’ coverage for Tree Lighting Ceremony Julefest Overview
2022
964
Solvang Visitor Center
● 13,881 visitors in the month of December
○ 28.6% increase from 2021 (10,798)
● 1,024 visitors on 12/26/22
Julefest Overview
2022
965
What Who Where Costs Notes Paid
November
Décor
Sprays for light poles Dektra-Lite
Down Mission & Alisal -
22 Poles $ 10,061.28 x
Installing the sprays for décor Full Moon Audio $ 2,400.00 x Décor for Santa in the Park Fred - Parks & Recs $ 4,000.00 X Garland and wreaths for Santa
Barn Valley Hardware $443.78 x
Supplies for the Santa Barn Valley Hardware $34.34 x
More Supplies for Barn Valley Hardware $57.65 x
Santa Barn Fencing Home Depot $399.86 x
Santa backdrop supplies Valley hardware $23.64 x
Santa backdrop supplies - paint Valley Hardware $19.36 x Nisser decore Valley Hardware $65.93 x
Zip ties for Ribbons and clear
paint for gifts Valley Hardware $35.73 x
Moving the Shed to and from the
park Public Works is managing Solvang Park $343.99 x
storage barns for the park for
santa and AV $543.00 x
Rite Aid wrapping paper for gifts $4.84 x
Rope to hang sign in Gazebo Valley Hardware $10.76 x
tape for tear down boxes Valley Hardware $15.06 x
tape for tear down boxes Valley Hardware $19.37 x
Rite Aid wrapping paper for gifts $4.84 x
Nisse Adventure
Dolls and buttons
Spend $1,970.60 on
1,740 dolls $1,970.60 budgeted $3,400 x
Candy Canes for Santa and Nissee Just Candy #2229827000 2,000 $205.67 X Nisse Dolls for Businesses The Right Gift 15 Dolls $271.39 X Nisse Clue Print outs Inklings 2,500 $564.92 X
Julefest 2022 Budget
966
Printed Items
Printing of the 246 Banner Inklings $ 1,645.66
Evergreen so it can be used
again x
Street Banners inklings Quanity: 20 $379.50 X
Poster for Centinial Plaza inkLings $15.00 X
Posters for Julefest inklings 50 $42.02 X
White Sandwich Signs inklings $67.88 x
Rack Cards Inkling 2000 $215.50 X
Ribbons for Floats Inklings place ribbons $77.58 x
Parade signs for mayor Inklings $17.34 x
x
Other
Photographer $ 962.24 Two days x
Nightly Music/Light Show
Tree lights for light show Full Moon Production Park $ 46,314.20 Daily Check in (includes
installation, decorating the
tree, adding to Gazebo) x
Friday, December 2nd
Tree lighting Ceremony 5-6:30PM
AV is include in quote above $ -
Jazz Band Santa Ynez Jazz Band Gazebo $ 250.00 x
Dancers, MC, tree lighter Park $ -
Marborg Porta restrooms Solvang park $ 825.00 x
Elite Party Rentals Dance floor and chairs Solvang Park $ 1,911.15 x Elite Party Rentals Tent for Santa Solvang Park $ 756.00 x Full Moon Audio
Rental of water poorf
lights incase of rain $ 1,350.00 x
Elite Party Rentals Tent For Santa Solvang Park $ 721.47 Keep the tent x Elite Party Rentals Tent For Santa Solvang Park $ 721.47 keep the tent till tear down
can happen 1/3 x
Saturday, December 3rd
Parade 11-12:30PM
967
Full Moon production 3 annoucning stations $ 1,675.00 x Volunteers City of Solvang -
Santa for the Parade
Sheriff and Staff $ 1,882.00 Estimate
emailed
1/18
Street Sweepers SP Maintenance $ 839.00 x
AMR Ambulance
11/22 - CM said we no
longer need $ - $ 1,273.88
Insurance Alliant $2,250 x
Farm Supply Bales of Straw $204.73 x
Best Buy
Laminent Machine for
Parade $313.15 x
Santa In the Park 2:00 PM -
4:00PM
Santa Gazebo $ 300.00 x
Jazz Band 12:30 PM - 2:20 PM Santa Ynez Jazz Band Roaming $ 300.00 x Carolers 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Carolers Roaming $ 300.00 x
Candlelight Tours 5:00 PM -
6:00PM
Solvang Visitor Center
Sunday, December 4th
Santa In the Park 11:00 AM - 3:
00PM
Santa Gazebo $ 300.00 x
Wednesday, December 7th
Holiday Night Marketplace
Full Moon for Lights and Power $ -
quote included in over all
quote from Full Moon x
Music entertianment $ 700.00 x
December 9th
Evening Activities
968
Carolers 6:30-8:30 PM $ 300.00 x
Jazz Band 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Santa Ynez Jazz Band $ 300.00 x Candlight Tour Visitor Center -
December 10th
Musin in Town 11:00 am - 2:00PM
Jazz Band Santa Ynez Jazz Band Roaming $ 300.00 x
Santa In the Park 12M - 4:00 PM
Richard $ 800.00 x
Carolers 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Carolers Roaming $ 300.00 x
Solvang Nativity Performance
5PM / 7PM
$ 5,000.00
$30K but asking for half
($15K) x
Sunday, December 11th
Santa In the Park 11:00 AM - 3:
00PM
Santa Gazebo $ 300.00 x
Wednesday, December 14th
Chrismas Lights & Sights $ - Parks & Recs
Friday, December 16th
Evening Activities
Carolers 6:30 PM - 8:30pm Roaming $ 300.00 x
Jazz Band 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Santa Ynez Jazz Band Roaming $ 300.00 x Candlight Tour Visitor Center -
Saturday, December 17th
Musin in Town 11:00 am - 2:00PM
Jazz Band Santa Ynez Jazz Band $ 300.00 x
969
Santa In the Park 12M - 4:00 PM
Santa $300.00 x
Candlelight Tours 5:00 PM
Solvang Visitor Center Sue
Carolers 3:30 Pm - 5:30PM
Carolers Gazebo $ 300.00
Danish Dancers Jensen Square
Sunday, December 18th
Santa In the Park 11:00 AM - 3:
00PM
Santa Gazebo $ 300.00 x
Friday, December 23rd
Evening Activities
Carolers 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM Roaming $ 300.00
Jazz Band 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Santa Ynez Jazz Band Gazebo $ 300.00 x Candlight Tours 5PM Visitor Center -
Friday, January 6
Solvang Tree Burn - Parks and
Recs $0.00
Total Budget $ 96,531.90
970